"The Part Doesn't Fit"
 

So I'm on DL72 this evening. We get just short of the runway and pilot indicates there's a mechanical issue. Ten minutes later we're informed that it cannot be fixed remotely and we have to go back to the gate.

At the gate, pilot announces the issue is the Captain's entire flight yoke. The whole thing. Says it needs to be replaced, and, obviously, due to the size of it, they think it'll be at least two hours. Interestingly, he said it would be less time for them to fix it than swap airplanes.

Passengers have deplaned and are in the gate area. Gate agent comes on to give an update and says "the mechanics went to another aircraft to borrow the part and when they brought it over here they realized that it doesn't fit, so we'll need to add about another 1.5 hours to the delay (already at 2.5hrs)."

Maybe this is true, I don't know. But I wonder sometimes if there's a line between transparency and just saying, "we're gonna need a bit more time?"

Cause mechanics getting a part that didn't fit doesn't instill much confidence in paying customers.

This part doesn't surprise me.

1) Who knows if a spare A333 is anywhere nearby.

2) Even if there is one, by the time they do all the prep, including, fuel, meal carts, bags off one plane, then load on the other one, paperwork, etc. Move the planes around - or, move all the passengers to a different gate. Surely there are TONS of thingz I can't think of right now . . . .

Besides, I could see - MAYBE - a B763 sitting around, but an A333? I dunno.

Good luck to you! Hope'ya don't hava connection in AMS!

Being ATL, I wouldn't be surprised if they do have another A333, but like you said, an aircraft swap at this time could take quite a few hours. However, it might not take as much to get the part.

I see the problem... they were trying to put a yoke on an Airbus! No wonder it didn't fit :D:D:D:D

Yoke:

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shri...OTU2OWU4ZQ.jpg

Sidestick:

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qim...cd3bda07e.webp

I think you meant:

Side-SCHTICK!

:D

Y'all are great. Spending the night in ATL due to now two missed connections and the 'fix' ongoing! Irony is I had the same thing happen last month on an ATL-LHR segment and they ended up doing a plane swap. Not having great luck of late!

I assume this was the RDU-ATL segment of Delta 72 operated with an MD-88? Because an A330 doesn't use a control column, it uses a joystick.

Couldn't be. That flight was 11 minutes early.

Ah ok. Then yeah as someone above pointed out they are in a losing battle trying to stick a control column on an Airbus. :D

So, is the pilot fibbin' about what part is broken? . . . Or, is there some other sort of yoke?

Great questions. I'm simply repeating what the gate agent said! Whatever it is, they're going on a 5hr + delay to replace whatever the plane needed and I'm living the dream at the Staybridge Suites.

If the pilot is calling it a yoke I would be quite concerned. :D

When there is a mechanical issue, I usually chat with the pilots and find out what exactly is wrong and what they think is really going to happen. A few times they have been blunt and said they doubt its fix-able or it will take a lot longer than what is being announced. Has saved me a few times when there was a different flight to grab and I either beat the rush to change flights or beat the pax on the broken plane to final destination if they did indeed fix. Moral of the story is it doesn't hurt to ask what is really going on :)

I've encountered DL mechanics actually telling HQ "the part doesn't fit!" and that was a de-icing unit for a 737-200 in a snowstorm (and yes, I'm dating myself there).

Perhaps the pilot was grabbing the wrong joystick... If nothing happened he might want to call up his doctor than a mechanic. :D

In any case, it looks like the yoke's on you, OP.

;)

Most likely using language that everyone understands. Most people would have no clue what a sidestick is.

Ya, I could just imagine what people would think if they were told the joystick was broken! :D

There wouldn't be a happy landing then :p

Well, at the very least, I'd hope the announcement would refer to just, "the joystick", implying the plane's joystick, as opposed to the Captain's joystick! :eek:

Only if the MX lasts more than 4 hours :D

Well, CGNC is on his way...http://pasteboard.co/kxCfWAGA.png

'Part not available' would be one thing. However 'part doesn't fit'? Doesn't this imply that someone tried to fit the wrong part? And that they thought it might fit?

That doesn't inspire confidence. Haven't there been a number of 'incidents' caused by incorrect parts being fitted? E.g. the pilot who ended up outside the cabin when a window blew out because of incorrect bolts being used on the window?

Being delayed due to a part not fitting isn't that much of a problem. But, what if the part is wrong but close enough to 'fit' but be a safety risk?

Even in aviation there's certain tolerances for a part. Part A might be at one extreme of tolerance and the hole in part b at the opposite extreme.

If there's so much manufacturing tolerance that the parts aren't interchangeable, then that doesn't inspire confidence either. The bolts on British Airways Flight 5390 showed how important an exact fit is.

Those were the wrong bolts. Not the same part within approved tolerance.

Also sometimes different sized parts can be used depending on the system. Airbus may have had a different sidestick at one point and it now uses another, but requires a different connecting part then what is installed and thus doesn't fit without changing the connecting part. Think of it like an electric adapter. Same cord and same electric system. However you may need an adapter in between to change the interface r so you can plug in.

Yes, but the only difference between the bolts was a very small difference in size. They were close enough so that they fit in the appropriate holes without it being obvious that they were the incorrect bolts.

If manufacturing tolerances, approved or not, were so wide that parts actually don't fit where they should do, then that seems to be wide enough for safety problems. Clearly a yoke is different from bolts used to attach a windshield. But even so, being that far out due to manufacturing tolerances would be even more worrying for me than someone bringing the wrong part and trying to fit it as a simple maintenance/repair error.

Hey, at the very least EU261 right :)

I'm pretty sure it's been posted before that, EU261 only applies to flights departing the EU.

It implies that an Airbus side-stick was retrieved but turned out to be the wrong part number.

Everything can be fine with the tolerances when the part was manufactured, but some parts deform a bit with use, including the wings (which also deform somewhat during use).

I will say this--its obviously not ideal to be delayed 24 hours to get to your destination but I'm pleased with how DL handled this. Granted, I was on the phone as the plane hit the gate in ATL and it was three hours of phone conversations, but I think DL in IRROPS for a Diamond is a good standard, in general. Even if EU261 was an option here, I'm not sure I'd press for it.

In addition to the hotel here in ATL, a re-route and overbooking to Z class because Y was full, they've already issued 30k miles as an apology. Things happen, yokes or otherwise, and I'm grateful to the JV Desk Supervisor last night who worked tirelessly to get me there, extend my trip by a day and try her best to make up for the hassle.

You did well and I admire your reticence to further demand EC261 compensation. At times with TWA/PMNW/DL I too haven't pursued potential additional compensation when I felt that I was treated very well given the circumstances. I know some people here would disagree, but to me this is only decent and honorable behavior.

Well, that alone makes it worth it, unless, of curse, you missed a specific day in Europe where you had to do something, hopefully not a cruise, or something you can't rebook.

That said - you never said what your final destination is. Inquing minds wanna know! :) No pressure!

Final destination is EBB! Entebbe is served once daily via Kigali on KLM. Missing that flight requires an additional stop in NBO and KGL (at times) and can arrive as much as 16 hours delayed. From previous experience and given I would've had to take a second overnight flight, hanging in ATL with the guarantee of nicer seats is a win in my book.

Wings are a bit different from a yoke, as the wings generate the force that keeps the airplane in the air. Wings also cannot be immobile as that leads to metal fatigue, as in the Comet.

It non-stressed parts deform sufficiently for a part that should fit to not fit, then that would suggest that the parts are made from materials that are far too soft: In engineering terms 'butter'.

Similar with engineering tolerances. Everything is manufactured to a tolerance, but that tolerance can easily be so fine such that two parts that are meant to fit will always fit. That's not difficult, and airplane parts, because of the safety considerations, should be properly made.

I'm seeing people raise points to show that the situation is different from the one I suggested. E.g. reinterpreting the situation. I never said that it was guaranteed that my interpretation is the correct one, but it does seem to me that it is still the most likely interpretation. Alternatives that have been suggested seem less likely to me (wrong part in stock but reported as 'the part doesn't fit') or ones that would create even greater concern than my interpretation would (parts machined to wide tolerances, parts soft enough to deform in use).

Very possibly like I suggested. Two different sidesticks and thus need an adapter for new to fit.

That sounds to me something that would more likely be described as a part not being available, rather than not fitting. Hence my previous post.

Not if they look the same and it wasn't clear till the new one was brought over that they needed an adapter to make it fit.

Also two correct parts might not fit if after much use a hole has slightly changed shape.

Basically way too much is being read into this comment.

My bad...it also applies to flights going to EU member states, BUT it has to be an EU airline, which I did not know.

So at least...EU261 for the people on the now very delayed return leg haha.