Flying public indicates desire for fully-assembled aircraft

"until he (passengers) noticed four fastening bolts missing from a wing panel, the New York Post reported."

Airline: "The panel is used to improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft," he said. "Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity or load capability of the wing, and the aircraft was safe to operate. "

Kind of begs a few questions. If the engineer who designed it thought it needed 119 vs 115, why would you think 115 would be just fine? And how did the airplane start loosing fasteners?
 
"until he (passengers) noticed four fastening bolts missing from a wing panel, the New York Post reported."

Airline: "The panel is used to improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft," he said. "Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity or load capability of the wing, and the aircraft was safe to operate. "

Kind of begs a few questions. If the engineer who designed it thought it needed 119 vs 115, why would you think 115 would be just fine? And how did the airplane start loosing fasteners?
They designed it with 119 fasteners so that you could lose 4 and still be safe. ;)
 
Depending on the panel, every other one missing could still be safe.
 
"until he (passengers) noticed four fastening bolts missing from a wing panel, the New York Post reported."

Airline: "The panel is used to improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft," he said. "Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity or load capability of the wing, and the aircraft was safe to operate. "

Kind of begs a few questions. If the engineer who designed it thought it needed 119 vs 115, why would you think 115 would be just fine? And how did the airplane start loosing fasteners?
More important question is why did they cancel the flight if the airplane was safe to fly? The only answers I can come up with are that they didn’t know about it or it wasn’t actually deferrable. I don’t think either one indicates the ability to do a proper preflight.
 
More important question is why did they cancel the flight if the airplane was safe to fly? The only answers I can come up with are that they didn’t know about it or it wasn’t actually deferrable. I don’t think either one indicates the ability to do a proper preflight.
Considering the size of an airliner and the fact that the missing fasteners would have to be on the top of the wing to be seen by a passenger, a preflight that was thorough enough to find them would probably take hours.
 
I feel for the cabin crews that will be spending half their time saying, "no, that's normal" because everybody is going to think they're an A&P now.
 
Last edited:
Considering the size of an airliner and the fact that the missing fasteners would have to be on the top of the wing to be seen by a passenger, a preflight that was thorough enough to find them would probably take hours.
So nobody preflight the top of the wing?
 
For a lot of major airline airplanes, the top of the wings cannot be SEEN by the flight crew. For a lot of things in the Majors world, it is a shared responsibility between the flight crew and other departments.
Exactly. I didn’t say the flight crew was to blame.
 
For a lot of major airline airplanes, the top of the wings cannot be SEEN by the flight crew. For a lot of things in the Majors world, it is a shared responsibility between the flight crew, departments, and passengers.
FIFY
 
They designed it with 119 fasteners so that you could lose 4 and still be safe. ;)
As a margin of safety, makes sense. But the idea (I hope) is to get it back up to 119 to keep the safety as soon as it is noticed.
 
Considering the size of an airliner and the fact that the missing fasteners would have to be on the top of the wing to be seen by a passenger, a preflight that was thorough enough to find them would probably take hours.
Depends on what you mean by preflight. I was talking about the walk-around before each flight. In that situation, verifying that there were no missing fasteners anywhere on an airliner between each flight would put an end to quick-turns, I would imagine.
 
Last edited:
FWIW: the one thing that is not known is if that panel could have missing fasteners per an MEL or other reference. There are a number instances where there can be one or multiple fasteners missing on certain exterior panels depending on aircraft and type of panel. However, even if there were such an exemption it would be bad PR to follow that narrative given a pax caught it and went public with it.
 
Depends on what you mean by preflight. I was talking about the walk-around before each flight. In that situation, verifying that there were no missing fasteners anywhere on an airliner between each flight would put an end to quick-turns, I would imagine.
Seems like slowing down quick turns would be preferable to cancellations due to passengers noting airworthiness issues that the airline didn’t. But my opinions don’t always jive with management’s.
 
Seems like slowing down quick turns would be preferable to cancellations due to passengers noting airworthiness issues that the airline didn’t. But my opinions don’t always jive with management’s.
Inspections that were detailed enough to catch missing fasteners anywhere on an airliner, if conducted between each flight, would increase the amount of time that each plane spent on the ground to such a degree that the number of planes the airlines had to buy and maintain would have to go up. That cost and the increased labor cost would result in significantly higher ticket prices.

Maybe there need to be more inspections, but I doubt that it has to be THAT many.
 
Inspections that were detailed enough to catch missing fasteners anywhere on an airliner, if conducted between each flight, would increase the amount of time that each plane spent on the ground to such a degree that the number of planes the airlines had to buy and maintain would have to go up. That cost and the increased labor cost would result in significantly higher ticket prices.

Maybe there need to be more inspections, but I doubt that it has to be THAT many.

ah HA. So this is just a clever plot by Airbus and Boeing to force the airlines to buy more airplanes...
 
Inspections that were detailed enough to catch missing fasteners anywhere on an airliner, if conducted between each flight, would increase the amount of time that each plane spent on the ground to such a degree that the number of planes the airlines had to buy and maintain would have to go up. That cost and the increased labor cost would result in significantly higher ticket prices.

Maybe there need to be more inspections, but I doubt that it has to be THAT many.
Like I said, my opinions don’t necessarily match those of management.
 
Like I said, my opinions don’t necessarily match those of management.
Nor the desire of the passengers for affordable air travel.

Are you really saying that you want airliners to receive a detailed inspection of every fastener on an airliner BETWEEN EACH FLIGHT?
 
More important question is why did they cancel the flight if the airplane was safe to fly? The only answers I can come up with are that they didn’t know about it or it wasn’t actually deferrable. I don’t think either one indicates the ability to do a proper preflight.

I liked the comment the retired airline pilot made while pre-flighting his Comanche. "Little airplanes require a much more through preflight than a 757. The little airplanes we can inspect a lot more, like moving the controls, checking each hinge and fastener. The 757, the pilot walks under the tail looks up and says yep that's tail, because there is no way he can get up there to check everything like we do on a 172"

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Nor the desire of the passengers for affordable air travel.

Are you really saying that you want airliners to receive a detailed inspection of every fastener on an airliner BETWEEN EACH FLIGHT?
As @Bell206 indicated, there are processes to determine whether the airplane can be flown with fasteners or panels missing, and that is part of “airworthiness.” I am really saying that airlines should fly airworthy airplanes.
 
FWIW: the one thing that is not known is if that panel could have missing fasteners per an MEL or other reference. There are a number instances where there can be one or multiple fasteners missing on certain exterior panels depending on aircraft and type of panel. However, even if there were such an exemption it would be bad PR to follow that narrative given a pax caught it and went public with it.
wouldn't that be under a CDL not an MEL? it not to often i can get one on you bell, even something that small......
 
wouldn't that be under a CDL not an MEL? it not to often i can get one on you bell, even something that small......
Ha. You're most likely correct for an Airbus product. However, if I had used "CDL" vs MEL, your average PoA'r would most likely have derailed the thread wondering what a "commercial drivers license" has to do with missing screws on an aircraft.;)
 
The panel in question is to cover up the important bolts that keep the wings attached. Aerodynamic, and cosmetic, but even if the whole panel went missing, the plane would be safe to fly.

Emotions being what they are, and bad publicity so damaging, the only "safe" choice the airline had was to deplane everyone, and send them on their way on a "Safe" aircraft.

Then, simply replace the missing bolts with similar looking, or the correct bolts, and they have a pure, good, safe aircraft to load another bunch of passengers into.

Perception is more important that facts when emotions and uninformed humans are involved.
 
Even from a failure/risk standpoint, having an occasional missing fastener in a row probably isn't the end of the world. But when the missing ones are all in a row, the possibilities of a ripping/progressive failure is a lot more critical.
 
Ha. You're most likely correct for an Airbus product. However, if I had used "CDL" vs MEL, your average PoA'r would most likely have derailed the thread wondering what a "commercial drivers license" has to do with missing screws on an aircraft.;)
actually, i have never seen even a CDL used for that on the bus if its a bad nutplate, rivnut ect it is mostly written up as temporary repair in accordance with MM section......
 
actually, i have never seen even a CDL used for that on the bus if its a bad nutplate, rivnut ect it is mostly written up as temporary repair in accordance with MM section......
On another forum someone posted an example of a 320 CDL for panel screws, example below. I've only used a CDL twice years ago on an older 737. Kind of wish we had CDLs for other aircraft as well. Definitely an interesting document.

1706308867783.png
 
On another forum someone posted an example of a 320 CDL for panel screws, example below. I've only used a CDL twice years ago on an older 737. Kind of wish we had CDLs for other aircraft as well. Definitely an interesting document.

View attachment 124765
im going to take a look at the 320 CDL just to see what there is in there about missing screws.
 
As I mentioned on the other thread with this post in it ... the passengers have no idea what is safe and what is not. They only know that there are parts missing that should be there. Besides, if this is a maintenance issue and they left out these easy to install screws where passengers can see them ... what can be expected of the work that was done where it's hidden?

It just seems to indicate some shoddy work and it sould have been called out.

Flame suit on! :lightning:
 
what can be expected of the work that was done where it's hidden?
You can very well expect that all work was properly complied with at its last mx event to include those 4 screws being installed. But you have to put this into context. Part 121 aircraft can fly for an extended periods (days/week) without anyone looking over the entire aircraft depending on the maintenance program. And the pilot walk arounds are only done from the ground in the span of a regular turnaround at the gate.

So the purpose of the CDL, or Configuration Deviation List, is to allow a legal means to dispatch the aircraft with certain items like panels, access doors, fairings, hardware, etc. found missing during that extended operations period. And its been that way for decades. What is newer is the CDL name as it was previously called the “Missing Parts List”.;)
 
Back
Top