BoeingBoy

The first was purely a bad trim setting it seems - I haven't read the full report - so my guess is that it doesn't have much in common with the PHL accident except the outcome. Whether that's due to lessons learned from the NW incident or US crews have enough common sense to add some nose down trim if the nose starts to pitch up on it's own, I have no idea.

The second sounds more like the PHL incident - a rejected T/O airbourne, probably after the nose tire blew above V1 but the engine indications showed something amiss after Vr. I assume that the nose gear collapsed on one of the impacts after the aborted takeoff, most likely the 2nd judging by what's been posted by an eyewitness and passengers. Eventually we'll get the facts from the NTSB.

Jim

phlwookie

Not much recent news on this incident, but one of the local Philadelphia TV stations got the most complete and clearest radio comms I've heard yet of the incident via a FOIA request, and are here:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...261150681.html

The aircraft (N113Uw) was, last I saw, outside the hangar on the SW side of PHL airport, not visible from I-95, with tiles removed, presumably awaiting scrapping.

phlwookie

Minor update on this from The Aviation Herald (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=471583da&opt=0):

On Jul 9th 2014 The Aviation Herald learned that the pilot flying was the first officer. The aircraft suffered a tail strike on rotation for takeoff, the takeoff was subsequently discontinued. The aircraft received damage beyond (economic) repair.

I think the only new news here is that the aircraft is indeed a write-off, which isn't a surprise. Other speculation had indicated debris ingestion into an engine as the start of the accident sequence rather than a tail strike though.

BoeingBoy

It must be one of the older 320's since the damage is certainly repairable - nose/tail skin damage, nose gear, and engine nacelle/accessories. The engines themselves are designed to support the plane in a gear up landing although there may be some fan blade damage due to nacelle deflection.

Jim

phlwookie

N113UW was delivered in January 2000, so it was a bit over 14 years old at the time of the incident, making it the same "vintage" as N106US, the "Miracle on the Hudson" now in the Carolinas Aviation Museum, which was delivered in August 1999.

I read in some forum a post from a US maintenance employee that the nose gear significantly breached the cockpit on the aircraft's final touchdown rather than truly "collapsed" by retracting into something resembling its stowed state. Perhaps this took out enough instrumentation to significantly increase the repair bill?

Had it been one of the newer A320s, I think they would have fixed it, but I'm a far cry from an aircraft insurance adjustor.

BoeingBoy

If it's true about the nose gear that would increase the repair cost significantly - I had just pictured it folding back.

Given that a major carrier often only pays 50% of list price for airliners ordered in significant numbers (Wolf ordered/optioned over 400 Airbuses) the value of a 14 year old plane is getting pretty low and the cost of repairs to fly it another 6-8 years can get prohibitive pretty quick. Make it 5 years old with another 18-20 years of useful life left and the repair/scrap decision changes drastically.

Jim

deventhakkar

I disagree about the fate of the plane . The aircraft, N113UW should not technically be W/O (Written-Off). You guys keep saying that it is too badly damaged to be repaired to return to service. I mean, the plane is a full 15 years of age. Don't some of you agree that it could have been POSSIBLY repaired? Just get a new nose gear, repair the electronics bay, repair the aft pressure bulkhead (replace lower half) sand down the tail-strike scratches, and send the engines to a repair shop. It's that simple.

BoeingBoy

The plane certainly could be repaired since with enough money it could be rebuilt from scratch with all new parts. However, what really matters is the economics of repairing it - does it have enough economic life or value left to justify the cost of returning it to airworthy condition?

Jim

JMN57

Hey - welcome back. It may be a little belated as I don't follow the US board as closely as the AA one. But this is the first, non-recovery post I've seen from you. Felt good to scan the threads and see a BoeingBoy post as most recent!

deventhakkar

Slightly off topic here but thanks for the answer.

Anyone else agree with me that the plane could be patched up and repaired?

FWAAA

Nobody has said that it couldn't be patched up and repaired; the relevant inquiry is "does it make financial sense to do so?"

Even relatively new cars are written off as "totaled" after collisions/floods/etc when the expense of repairing them would result in an asset worth less than the cost of repair, and that's likely the case here. Older vehicles are usually worthless after a major collision

Older single-aisle Airbus, like this 15-year old A320, haven't had a demonstrated useful life much in excess of 20-25 years or so. Spend millions making it airworthy only to have a relatively worthless asset after you spent those millions? When Boeing and Airbus are making great deals on brand-new older-model single-aisle planes (non-neos and non-MAX)?

If this plane was a rarity, like one of the last B-29s or B-17s, then sure - spend whatever it takes to repair. But old A320s, even those never involved in a crash-landing, are a dime a dozen. Why pine for the repair of this one?

Yes, it could be patched up and repaired. So what?

deventhakkar

Oh yeah. Now I get it why this plane is considered dbec (damaged beyond economic repairs) and consequently W/O (written off). It doesn't make much of a difference to repair this bird because repairing a substantially damaged plane which has just passed its midlife is costly while purchasing a new one is much cheaper

This 15 year old Airbus is not entirely useless. Before this plane gets scrapped, it should be sold to another company, be dismantled(taken apart) on site and parted out. FYI, the airframe is largely intact so a large majority of spare parts and aircraft components can be re-used on other aircraft of its type or others. It's called cannibalization; dismantling and removing undamaged parts, equipment and components from an item or vehicle and using it on another type of its kind.

deventhakkar

Thank for your info, pal! Now I agree with the acceptance of the fate of N113UW from the NTSB and FAA. Sadly, it's not financially/economically possible to repair this plane due to the repair cost. ��

Shame it's going to be broken-up and scrapped on site soon. But at least it might be used for spare parts.

phlwookie

The plane was still in the southwest corner of PHL over by the south cargo area last I looked a little while ago. Writing off a potentially repairable aircraft, much like a car, is an insurance decision. In this case, the plane has many salvageable parts but the fact that the front landing gear penetrated the cockpit likely had significant bearing on the decision. The plane will be stripped of everything still useful, then scrapped, either in place or trucked somewhere with the wings removed to be scrapped.

deventhakkar

Why the heck would they do that? I mean, they should cut off the cockpit from the rest of the plane, cannibalize the plane/use for aircraft spare parts (dismantle and part out the wings, engines, elevators, tail fin, and the main landing gear and put up the plane in jacks.

The hull with the cabin inside should be remaining outside the hanger with passenger boarding air stairs. The cabin should be used for crew training/fire practice or evacuation practice.