A New York-bound Virgin Atlantic flight was canceled just moments before takeoff last week when an alarmed passenger said he spotted several screws missing from the plane’s wing.

  • @Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1041 year ago

    We’re going to have to start walking around the plane with the pilot before takeoff like a rental car dent check.

  • @NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    I sympathise with the airline because it’s always a pain when you’ve nearly completed the flatpack before you realise that one screw is missing. Hopefully it’ll hold together without it.

  • @Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    301 year ago

    The pilot should’ve walked out onto the wing, slapped a couple lengths of duct tape on that section, then carefully and loudly exclaimed; “ YUP! That baby ain’t goin’ anywhere.” while patting the area firmly.

  • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    I would have been fine flying on that plane.

    Highly unlikely that panel was critical to keeping the plane in the air even if it did come off during flight.

    • @Tessellecta@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      Panels coming off during flight is still not ideal, even if they’re not critical to flying. They can hit things that are more essential.

          • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The reason I think that it’s unlikely to be problematic is because the experts quoted in the article said it’s unlikely to be problematic.

            I also have a very small amount of knowledge on this and know that planes fly with missing parts/broken things all the time, just like how everything in our car isn’t working 100% of the time either but we still drive it.

        • lad
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          Yeah, it’s like if a door would fall off a plane in the course of a flight, very unlikely

    • @rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      You don’t think it’s possible that missing bolts in a non critical part of the plane is reflective of poor inspection and maintenance and that would increase the risk of missing or loose bolts in, say, a door?

      • @ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        In the end I recognize that I am not the expert on these matters in any way. I have no idea what a properly maintained aircraft looks like and pretty much have to trust the people who are paid to know these things. If you’re uncomfortable with something, by all means mention it, but it’s folly to assume you know better or can make even decent assumptions about the maintenance of a plane unless you are an aircraft mechanic.

        • @rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          You didn’t really answer or address my question. If you walk into a restaurant and see a rat running by table #2, do you just assume that “the restaurant experts” know better than you and it is safe to eat the food?

          • @lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            -41 year ago

            By all means, if you are concerned about something on the plane, please mention it to a member of the flight crew.

            That said, you’ve used a poor analogy.

            There’s a difference between understanding the significance of a rat in a restaurant and understanding the significance of some bolts missing from a piece of fuselage… which is the point of the comment you’re glibly replying to.

            Most people understand the concept of rats being harbingers of illness, but most people don’t understand the finer mechanics of powered flight. We put our trust in the flight crew to have that greater understanding, that they won’t put our OR their lives in danger by cutting corners. Chances are good that if the flight crew isn’t concerned, you don’t need to be either.

            • @Evia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              No but we do know the basic function of screws: holding shit together. The absence of screws implies that shit is not held together fully. Is it still sufficient to fly? Maybe. But the presence of screw holes implies that somebody in the development process thought them necessary and now they’re not there.

              Sure, it’s likely safe in the same was that the restaurant rat is likely not carrying a plague. But it’s not guaranteed and I’m not willing to be the one to test it

            • @rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They why did they ground the plane if they weren’t concerned? And then replace the bolts that you claim aren’t necessary? Are they cosmetic bolts? lol.

              • @lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                I didn’t say anything about that plane, and I didn’t say anything about bolts being unnecessary. I was simply responding to the other guys bad analogy because he kept demanding someone answer his question.

            • Psychadelligoat
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              but most people don’t understand the finer mechanics of powered flight.

              Pretty sure “are all the bolts in their holes” is more of an “I can put IKEA furniture together pretty well” level and not “finer details of the mechanics of flight” level

        • @Evia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Sure, this is why the passenger raised the issue to make sure someone responsible was aware of it and could make that safety judgement. And clearly they were right to do so if the pilot (or whoever) grounded the plane.

      • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        Yep, any number of reasons why it could have been left like that.

        I’ve been on planes where I’ve seen duct tape on the wings, it’s really not an issue other than psychological.

          • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -11 year ago

            As in, do I think it means there are poor inspection practices?

            No it isn’t indicative of this. Planes fly with things wrong with them every single day.

            There is every chance that the maintenance crew notified people of this - it was signed off as still being airworthy and the whole reason this was an issue is actually because PR not a risk to safety.

            • @rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Okay whatever you have to tell yourself bra. If this were not a concern they would have FLOWN THE PLANE and not grounded it out of safety concern. lol.

  • @herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    901 year ago

    I knew software companies were offloading QA testing onto their paying users, but who would have guessed that passengers would start playing that role too?

  • @xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    56
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Given how completely the airline industry disregards customer service and treats its customers like cattle, I don’t know why anyone would expect them to do a proper job of maintaining equipment. Furthermore, given how eager we are to gut regulation and dismantle the administrative state, all of this is going to just keep getting worse and worse.

  • blargerer
    link
    fedilink
    1391 year ago

    While its likely true that the wing panel was both non-critical and secure, I’d be much more worried that if they missed something like that, that they could have missed any number of other things as well. Isn’t there supposed to be some sort of check-list run?

    • Hildegarde
      link
      fedilink
      501 year ago

      Pilots perform an inspection of the aircraft before every flight. Missing fasteners on the top of the wing would not be visible during a walkaround from the ground.

      Planes are allowed to fly with many parts missing. A few missing fasteners on a non structural part is fine, but missing fasteners that the pilots are unaware of is a big issue.

  • British traveler Phil Hardy, 41, was onboard Flight VS127 at Manchester Airport in the UK on Jan. 15 when he noticed the four missing fasteners during a safety briefing for passengers and decided to alert the cabin crew.

    “I thought it was best to mention it to a flight attendant to be on the safe side.”

    Neil Firth, the Airbus local chief wing engineer for A330, added that the affected panel was a secondary structure used to improve the aerodynamics of the plane.

    Hardy said airline staff repeatedly reassured him there was no safety issue with the wing, but his fear was heightened given the recent ordeal in which an Alaska Airlines plane lost its door plug and a chunk of its fuselage flew off mid-flight.

    “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,” he said.

    “As a precautionary measure, the aircraft underwent an additional maintenance check, and the fasteners were replaced.”


    Noteable comments:

    The fasteners were not “replaced”…they were now properly included, as per the design. The public is not reassured if you cannot use precise or non-ambiguous language. It’s better to state that it was an oversight or be specific: i.e. the design calls for a maximum of 119 fasteners, but allows for a minimum number (x), and thus it was allowed to fly. - tyrionsBeard

    Great! So not only do you have to pay extra for a seat, checked bags but you have to check the wings before take off. That man should be credited for their flaw. - Mabel

  • @acutfjg@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    181 year ago

    Don’t worry! There were 119 fasteners being used. Ignore the fact that 4 were missing. The plane was designed to use whatever number of fasteners we want. The amount is just a suggestion

    /s

    • @teuto@lemmy.teuto.icu
      link
      fedilink
      351 year ago

      For what it’s worth, just about every panel like this is certified to have a specific number of fasteners missing. A lot of the time there will be some other qualifiers such as not missing the leading fastener or not missing adjacent fasteners. Having a bunch in a row like this incident would probably not be ok, but I couldn’t say without the maintenence manual.

      • lad
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        It’s just that if you know that it would be ok to miss a few and deliberately don’t install them you’re walking a very thin ice. It must be a reserve of fasteners, not a discount in fasteners used

      • @acutfjg@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        Right, these are usually spec’d so that there’s some leeway, and I don’t believe they’re lying when they say it would’ve been safe to fly. But after the recent plane debacles I don’t blame those passengers to bringing it up.

    • @fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Planes are designed to have very high tolerances so yeah, they have more fasteners than necessary for exactly this reason. Of course you still want to fix it, but they are absolutely designed to not need them all.