Airportmanager From Ecuador, joined Mar 2001, 544 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10898 times:
Dear Friends from the aviation community,
Well, a topic that has been flying around already after Iberia's EC-JOH's overshoot on RWY 35 in UIO back in november, has now come to an "end". Yesterday, a friend of mine, in charge in the repair analysis, and the possible repair itself, wrote me an email. He told me he was back in Ecuador but for bad news. He told me that the final decision has been taking (I'll avoid details) and Iberia EC-JOH will be scrapped starting today. I thought you guys might like to know this, because it is a sad, and unbelievable decision, we weren't expecting of course. Just to think a 2 year old plane will be cut, is amazing. I have spoken with him and there is a chance to help and take pics of this event, so I hope to be able to document this, and maybe take some pics. Anyway, thats all for now, im still wondering how they will deal with the pieces, maybe they'll take them in a freighter for spares in TLS, or maybe destroy it all, i don't know, but still. Ill keep you posted. Thats all for now. Ohh, yes, the process will be finished in 20 days just about.
Stefano Rota
Just some pics that i took the day of the accident
MYT321 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10801 times:
Sad, sad, sad. But at the end of the day it's just a few hundred tonnes of aluminiun and other materials. If it had skidded another hundred metres or so the fate of the plane would not be a issue, only the grief for many lives. Replacement passengers and local residents cannot be manufactured in TLS. This incident should go down as a 'save' for the aviation industry.
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3559 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10828 times:
That's hard to believe. The only obvious damage from the a.net database photos are the bent #2 nacelle and subsequent engine damage, and a potentially collapsed left main landing gear (hard to tell if it's actually collapsed, or if the plane merely came to rest on a berm or something like that).
Rulebooks and regulations are made from paper...and they do a poor job at preventing metal from contacting rock-Ernest G
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10719 times:
Quoting MYT321 (Reply 1): Sad, sad, sad. But at the end of the day it's just a few hundred tonnes of aluminiun and other materials. If it had skidded another hundred metres or so the fate of the plane would not be a issue, only the grief for many lives. Replacement passengers and local residents cannot be manufactured in TLS. This incident should go down as a 'save' for the aviation industry.
Dead right, at the end of the day it's just a beautiful piece of metal and composite. Shame to see it scrapped though when so young, but not entirely unexpected.
On a side issue, has IB resumed A346 operations to Quito, or is it going to stay with the A343?
NQYGuy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8944 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 4): On a side issue, has IB resumed A346 operations to Quito, or is it going to stay with the A343?
I heard on another forum that they could not use the A340-600 on the route again at the moment due to the limitation of the government of Ecuador. So I think they used/are using a A340-300 at the moment. Obviously Airportmanager knows alot more about the logistics of it all, so he'll be able to confirm thats the case.
I was wondering how much they could use from the aircraft after its been cut up. Surely they must be able to use some of those parts (like PTV's) in the newer ones?
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 475 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8903 times:
I would like a few details, if possible, and if you don't mind... About the damages seen and unseen, the amount of work that "would have" been required... etc ??? Please...
“If we were serious about subsidizing alternative energy, we would have done it in 1976” Gen. W. Anderson, USAF, 2008
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3650 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8692 times:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 9): I would like a few details, if possible, and if you don't mind... About the damages seen and unseen, the amount of work that "would have" been required... etc ??? Please...
Yeah, I'm a bit confused, myself. It appears to me that the damage isn't so bad.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 7674 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8692 times:
Not at all surprising; it is certainly sad, but at least there is a lot (interior fittings, instruments) that IB can recover from the aircraft. Any news of what happened to the crew? I'm presuming "early retirement" ...
Quoting NQYGuy (Reply 8): heard on another forum that they could not use the A340-600 on the route again at the moment due to the limitation of the government of Ecuador
That's my understanding too; I'm presuming they'll stick with 343s for the foreseeable future.
My understanding - and I'm no structural engineer - is that there was significant damage to the structure of the aircraft, including the wing box and the cost of repairing this was very significant; also, it may have been the case was Airbus was unable to give guarantees that the structural integrity would be maintained as a result of such repairs.
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world".
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8491 times:
Quoting MYT321 (Reply 1): Sad, sad, sad. But at the end of the day it's just a few hundred tonnes of aluminiun and other materials. If it had skidded another hundred metres or so the fate of the plane would not be a issue, only the grief for many lives. Replacement passengers and local residents cannot be manufactured in TLS. This incident should go down as a 'save' for the aviation industry.
Very well said Couldn't have worded it better myself. I really really love the 346, probably my favorite Airbus product in service right now, and it really sucks to have had to write off 2, but at least in both accidents, there were no lost lives, which is the best and only good thing to come out of this. Thanks for the update Airportmanager!
If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always be what you've always been!
TPAPDX From United States, joined Oct 2005, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7694 times:
I'm just guessing here, but I can assume there may have been some tweeking of the fuselage, and perhaps stress fractures of major wing assemblies, requiring major repairs.
I must agree with the above poster, noting that Quito may have presented a logistical problem for such repairs - depending on infrastructure available onsite. They would have had to fly in a substantial amount of equipment, supplies, and personnel. Had it happened at a major airport, such as LHR/JFK/CDG, etc, it certainly may have been possible.
They'll be able to salvage most all of the aircraft, worth a substantial amount of money.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3155 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7640 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 13): My understanding - and I'm no structural engineer - is that there was significant damage to the structure of the aircraft, including the wing box and the cost of repairing this was very significant; also, it may have been the case was Airbus was unable to give guarantees that the structural integrity would be maintained as a result of such repairs.
As an engineer I can attest that very often significant damage can lurk unseen beneath the skin of any structure. In the case of an airliner when the landing gear and an engine get torn off there is a very real risk of structural damage to the wingbox, which is structurally the most critical part of the airplane. Airbus (and Boeing) take measures to try and limit the damage in such cases (such as breakaway parts) but those are not failsafe. The simple fact is that both the engine and landing gear need to be fastened securely enough that they will not depart in normal, even extreme, operation (and the record of the 747 shows that this point is not always found) but hopefully will break off cleanly in case of impact, as happened here. The exact load where the attachments break is not easy to determine, and even then the accident can induce other stresses that distort the wing box anyway, and thus render repairs much more difficult and expensive. I suspect that this is what happened to this airplane, and had it happened at Toulouse perhaps it would have been more feasible to repair, but even there it may be that it would have cost more to repair than it is worth. This also applies to the BA 777 that we have been discussing at length.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7226 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16): and had it happened at Toulouse perhaps it would have been more feasible to repair, but even there it may be that it would have cost more to repair than it is worth.
If I'm remembering correctly from speaking with IBERIA747 a few months ago in MAD, the problem was indeed getting it to TLS. Repairs could have been carried out at Quito to get it back into a 'flyable' condition again, but after that there were no guarantees that it wouldn't have encountered further (structural) problems in flight, and I doubt anyone could have found a crew wanting to risk their lives by flying a potentially lethal plane thousands of miles over mountains and ocean.
Albird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5993 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 18): I doubt anyone could have found a crew wanting to risk their lives by flying a potentially lethal plane thousands of miles over mountains and ocean.
there called airbus test pilots! And who said that they had to do it in a single flight?
Serious sad day but I presumed that this would be the case with it being so far away from Home or at an airport with the equipment to handle this kind of repair that is needed!
I hope to fly the A346 one day (and probably on IB as i am OW elite) as they always look great aircraft! Shame tho that there are a couple that have had to go to the chop shop!
Sponsor Message: 
From Ecuador, joined Mar 2001, 544 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 57 posts, 
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4639 posts, 
From United States, joined Nov 2005, 3559 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7062 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 5282 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 928 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 475 posts, 
From Cuba, joined Oct 2003, 4619 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 7674 posts, 
Couldn't have worded it better myself. I really really love the 346, probably my favorite Airbus product in service right now, and it really sucks to have had to write off 2, but at least in both accidents, there were no lost lives, which is the best and only good thing to come out of this. Thanks for the update Airportmanager!
From , joined Dec 1969, posts,