I think you are thinking of the 787.

"Tower, this is Boeing 767 alpha niner four heavy. Whatever was blocking the nose gear door has cleared. We're good for approach."

JackBNimble1

Not only has Boeing been three years late on this plane but they still can't keep all the parts together. Anybody looking forward to fly on this lemon?

The 767 started production in 1982 and continues today, I think you are jumping the gun saying its Boeing's fault for the door falling off. Who knows how long this particular aircraft's been in service, but unless there is a rash of incidents of landing gear doors falling off this model; the blame most likely should fall on the ground crews of the airline that repairs that particular aircraft. An aircraft mechanic myself I hate to blame aircraft maintainers for pieces falling off aircraft, but unless it came straight from the factory; its not Boeing's fault.

I wonder if John Hansen knows it is a federal offense to withhold evidence in an FAA investigation. At the moment that door hit the ground any and all of it became the property of the Federal Government. Very stupid to let them print your name in the news about stealing evidence.

I think the real question that should have been answered in this story is: What plane that landed at Seatle-Tacoma (Sea-Tac) airport is missing a cargo door?

sprintcarpilot69!, Really don't care about fed law, yes they can have it for the investigation, only when their done I want it back. Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers. PS, I really don't think your stealing evidence if it falls damn near your lap, I think the guy just needs to let the FAA borrow it and return after their investigation. If the FAA needs more info, they know who has it and can ask to borrow it again, as long as they return it. I think that would be the best thing to do, instead of threats of legal action. As it is I'm starting to wonder about us and the government, cooler heads should be able to handle this, I've found a lot of talking for a while tends to help remedy stuff like this.

Actually, the part belongs to the owner of the plane it fell off of.

Danny, the moment it becomes evidence you don't have a proprietary claim over it. Because once the FAA or the NTSB return that piece to whoever claim it, it loses its evidentiary value.

Hey Boeing (and the carrier) There are no doubt thousands of laid off American Airplane Mechanics that would no doubt give their left nut to work for you, instead you farm out aircraft maintenance to South America (Uruguay, Mexico, etc.). You get what you pay for (and but for the grace of God) you did not kill someone for the almighty dollar.

Don't fly folks use VTC.

Stand and Deliver

"Tower, this is Boeing 767 alpha niner four heavy. Whatever was blocking the nose gear door has cleared. We're good for approach."

rotflmao

The 767 has been flying for years dum bass.

Good thing it's now the property of the NTSB, otherwise the airline would be charging the homeowner a fee for using their door.

@danny estridge

That makes perfect sense, except that we don't live in a society where "finders keepers" is the law. The part does not belong to someone who finds it, no more than my car belongs to someone who locates it in a parking garage when I forgot where I parked.

The part belongs to Boeing and Boeing is obliged to let the NTSB examine it. After the investigation, the part will continue to belong to Boeing, period -- there is no grey area here.

tequila makes your clothes fall off...guess the plane had to much tequila...

really fed up, You hit the nail on the head!

Actually, the part belongs to the airline.

@jack from Jax

I think the real question that should have been answered in this story is: What plane that landed at Seatle-Tacoma (Sea-Tac) airport is missing a cargo door?

Actually it wasn't the cargo door, it was the door to the landing gear. And I don't see where in the article it said that the plane was landing at SeaTac, it could have been landing at the nearby Boeing Field. Maybe Boeing was working on this plane?

Boeing to home owner: SURPRISE!!

metal fatigue in the bolts/hinges, improper repair/installation, manufacturer defect, etc.

Yeah, you'd think someone would have noticed it missing by now. Any airline out there have a 767 burning 10-20% more fuel at cruise lately? (Also some odd wind noise under the cockpit?)

that's nothing. last week I was in a plane, and the ENTIRE PLANE landed on the runway, in a single piece!

Its called TFOA. And its been happening for many years. This is nothing new.

Airlines have cut back maintenance to bare minimums. Furthermore, some maintenance is being outsourced to China, and there have been problems with counterfit parts.

Aircraft maintenance being outsourced to China? Can you provide some documentation to support that? I seriously doubt that any domestic airlines here outsource their aircraft maintenance to China.

The best part of this story is waiting for the follow-up story that probably won't happen because the company that noticed its landing gear door missing doesn't want to admit it.

@stoopids,I was in a plane on Thursday, I fell out of it and landed on the ground, the plane went back to the airport and landed without me :)

Well you heard it here first. Airline maintenance farmed out to China, where they eat their young btw, it is on the internet so it must be true.

Gumps - "Aircraft maintenance being outsourced to China? Can you provide some documentation to support that? I "seriously doubt that any domestic airlines here outsource their aircraft maintenance to China."

Why on earth in today's economy would you seriously doubt that anything would be outsourced to China? You think that because Corporations have been given "people" status that they've suddenly developed some kind of deep seeded patriotism? Loyalty?

Here, let me alleviate your "serious doubts" Gumps.

MRO = maintenance, repair, and overhaul.

"All air carriers outsource some element of their
maintenance requirement. Typically, heavy maintenance,
which is labor intensive and requires extraordinary outlay
for facilities and equipment, is outsourced. For carriers in
the US, 71% of heavy maintenance is outsourced, with
engine maintenance one of the fastest growing segments of
the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) market
(Phillips, 2008). "

"Projected MRO growth is ‘‘particularly strong in India
and China, followed by Asia, Europe and North America
with less growth in North Africa and the Middle East’’
(Phillips, 2008, para. 9)"

-

There's a particularly simple graph that notes the wages paid for USA, Brazil, and of course, China if you need it broken down further as to why this outsourcing is happening. It's called "Figure 2. Estimated man hour costs in dollars. Adapted from ‘‘Tenets of MRO strategy for airlines" and it can be found by scrolling down to the THIRD page (marked as page 65 in the document) from the title page found here on Perdue Universities website:

Similar info. is also found in numerous places throughout the web.

Gumps, my Vietnamese boyfriend has a sister who still lives in Vietnam. She makes heart valves for big pharma. co's to be used in transplant patients here in the USA.

Hope that doesn't disturb you too much, even though we all know you get what you pay for. Or rather Big Corps get what they pay for and then pass these inferior products onto us while charging us a phenomenal amount for them.

@ Wayneaero, until the purchase orders go thru.... :)

Sorry...found here:

In your browser, after the h t t p :

add this:

//docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=jate

Whatever

Do you even know the definition of the word maintenence? Providing parts is one thing, and bringing in "some" parts from China is only natural. But to actually replace a windshield or damaged engine part in a country the aircraft never sees is ludicris and its moronic to even suggest it. But when a carrier (american of not) flies between this country and another that has much lower wages, much lower costs for land and repair facilities thays where the carrier does its schedules MAINTENENCE to save money. This is normal business practice, explain to me how a carrrier could save money by flying a jumbo jet to China to do MAINTENANCE!

If its a repair and requires it before it can fly, it obvioulsy gets repaired in a hangar in the city where its at. Carriers have hangars in most cities they fly into. If the issue can wait it will be fixed during its scheduled maintenance at the maintenance facility that will be located in a city it regularly flies into.

Ken Trout -"Do you even know the definition of the word maintenence?"

Well Ken Trout, do you even understand the definition of reading comprehension?

Gumps - "Aircraft maintenance being outsourced to China? Can you provide some documentation to support that?

I simply supplied Gumps with the documentation he asked for Ken.

I do however appreciate your ability to get involved in these comments and then run off wildly into some wholly unrelated unknown tangent though, so I'll oblige you with an answer to your question and just say ... yes Ken, I do even know the definition of the word maintenance...I even know how to spell it correctly.

I also do however find it unsettling though, that you would initiate this 'argument' - clearly based solely on a premise fabricated in your own head - with me because at no time in my comment do I ever indicate that I believe "a carrrier could save money by flying a jumbo jet to China to do MAINTENANCE!" as you feel compelled to scream.

Even the most average of intelligence amongst us is aware that outsourcing in it's most simplest of definitions is to have work performed by others in other places instead of having it be performed here by us. No airline flights required. But by all means Ken, continue screaming your questions out into the ether so you can continue on having this argument...um...with yourself.

Enjoy your day.

Whatever-

I understand your argument, believe it or not while I was stationed in England (U.S. Air Force); I attended several maintenance meetings to have a local contractor take over the Isocronical inspection process for our aircraft (this was about 12 years ago) due to manning shortfalls. So if USAFE talked about this over ten years ago, I'm sure the major airlines are doing the same. Its all about money (greed).

After I typed my comments I did a search on the subject and found this, it appears the Air Force finally approved it. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/28/Marshall-continues-NATO-C-130-maintenance/UPI-74601296230517/ and http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-02-04/marshall-pursues-its-core-c-130-hercules-business

Panther - 1374895 -

You're pretty astute to determine that it is indeed about greed, as about 1/3 of Marshall Group's (Marshall Aerospace) board of directors consists of former bankers and financiers:

S.J. MOYNIHAN FCA
She joined the Group in 1997 from Ernst & Young, became Group Financial Controller in 2000 and
Head of Group Insurance in 2002. She was appointed Company Secretary of the Group..

J.D. Barker ACIB ACIS Appointed 2012
Formerly with Lloyds Bank plc before joining the Marshall Group in 1976. He is a member of the
Chartered institute of Bankers and ..

P.J. HARVEY ACIB DipFS Appointed 2008
He is a former Chief Executive of Barclays Commercial Banking and, latterly, until his
retirement in 2008, Vice Chairman of Barclays UK Banking...

W.C.M. DASTUR FCA Appointed 1996
Formerly a partner with Ernst & Young, he joined the Group and the Board in 1996 as Group
Financial Director. He acts as Chairman of the Trustees for the Group’s various pension funds...

There's also one who has 25 years of experience in the defence industry with Plessey, Marconi and BAE Systems, and one who retired as Chairman of Rolls-Royce which would explain why if Marshall Aerospace doesn't get the contract out right then they're partnered with one of the others mentioned above for it.
Marshall Group is big. I guess our only somewhat equivalent corp. would be Lockheed Martin.

But ugh, the U.S. AGREED to let NAMSA handle these contracts so that means that NATO is involved. Ugh. That ensures that all the work will be (is supposed to be anyway) passed around amongst several foreign countries.

It saddens me.
It all reminds me of Halliburton - and their "special" treatment - all over again.
I don't want to research this any further for I fear I may find out that our entire world really is in fact controlled by 3, maybe 4, Super Corporations as I already suspect.

Regarding the outsourcing of maintenance to China: Any of you aware that China has many of its own airliners, being maintained here (I'm an American living in China), and they aren't all falling out of the sky? China Southern, China Eastern are two big ones. Cathay Pacific, based in Hong Kong, has an excellent safety record.

They DO know how to properly maintain aircraft.

Regarding the gear door falling off: Jets with gear doors (not all have them) have two differant gear operating speed limtations. There is the gear extended speed limit and there is the, lower, gear operating (retraction and extending) speed limitation. Retracting and extending the gear is a lower speed than gear extended. This almost always due to the gear doors being open during the gear cycling. That door creates a lot of drag out there in the airstream and it isn't nearly as robust as the gear itself.

To put this in perspective I fly an airplane (not a 767) that has a gear extended speed of 260 knots indicated. The gear retraction and extention speed limitation is a much lower 200 knots indicated. This is because of the gear doors. You retract the gear and the door opens, gear retracts and the doors close. You extend the gear and the doors open, the gear extends and the doors close.

I submit that it is possible the crew retracted or extended the gear at a much too high of a speed. Blew the door right off. I am not saying this IS what happened but merely suggesting a possibility that has nothing to do with poor maintenance.

This HAS happened before to crews being careless. One way this can occur is the aircraft is too high and too fast to make a stabilized approach and safe landing. So the gear gets extended at too high of a speed because they want that extra drag to slow the plane down. Poor airmanship but it does happen.

I do not fly the Boeing 767 and do not know what the gear operating speed differences are (I fly a business jet). This is just a bit of guesswork.

Last, regarding airlines outsourcing maintenance to other countries, these are businesses. They are in business to make money. Greed has nothing to do with it. And the airlines are all bleeding money. Except for Southwest, who only operates domestically. These airlines all need to cut costs where they can. This doesn't mean they cut costs by not properly maintaining their planes. THAT is very expensive in the long run

Whatever-

Sadly you may be right. Have you seen this yet, Ethos: A Time for Change?http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ethos/

That was the first thing I thought of too. Great movie.

No,we haven't been able to trust good grief for years. Just ask charlie Brown. ;p

Well put.

Agreed.

best comment yet

Okay, I take issue with and umbrage at that comment!!!! (Somebody was going to . . .)

Probably would have raised ticket prices also. When it comes to engines and parts that are bolted to a plane, you would think the company flying it would have enough motivation to do those inspections themselves, and quite accurately. The Tech Inspectors could be employed by the airline (or shared by a few airlines) at a far lower cost than through the government. Get it!

The door could have been left un-latched, or worked on right before this flight took off, do you want to wait for an inspection on each door before each take-off?

Rule #1 think then speak/write

robn

The door could have been left un-latched

Rule #1 think then speak/write

It was a landing gear door. It opens and closes every time the gear is raised and lowered. No latching or unlatching required. Go read your rule #1.

I hope the aircraft operater changes their mainenance practices.....for the better!

"...or worked on right before this flight took off, do you want to wait for an inspection on each door before each take-off?"

Are you mentally diminished? Why would EACH door have to be inspected before EACH take-off? Ever?

But if this plane ihas maintenance problems and is "...WORKED ON RIGHT BEFORE THE FLIGHT TOOK OFF..." then YES, DEFINITELY. I would most certainly like the one door that was worked on to be inspected before take-off. I'll gladly wait for that!

have some more koolaid and go back to bed, your food stamps will be here soon

"Independent government organizations, including the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General's Office, have gone to the airlines and said, 'Where is the work being done and who's doing it?' " says McGee.

"And the airlines, amazingly, have responded that they're not clear, in some cases. To me, this is just mind-boggling. ... Congressional testimony has shown that the FAA does not even have a full sense of where the work is being done."

- from NPR's website

www dot npr dot org /2012/06/27/155838099/why-flying-is-no-fun-and-may-be-more-dangerous

Good point. Those Nova Scotians are notorious for shoddy manufacturing. I heard they built the Apollo 13 capsule and both of those space shuttles that disintegrated. Ban Nova Scotian products before more people die!

What's wrong with bolts from Nova Scotia?

1st cav

1978 Airline Degregulation Act-Jimmy Carter

Democrats who started the snowball rolling down the hill. the rest is history as they say.

"The Airline Deregulation Act is a 1978 United States federal law intended to remove government control over fares, routes and market entry (of new airlines) from commercial aviation.

The Act, however, did not remove or diminish the regulatory powers of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over all aspects of air safety."

Do you ever read about the stuff you post? Or do you think everyone else is as stupid as you?

Why would you use facts in a conversation with these folks? They don't believe in facts....they believe in "votin' fer the same party my daddy done voted fer."

Facts to these folks are like cryptonite to Superman.

knew somewhere in this vine ther would be idiot like "1st cav" to bring politics into it. oh and it was a gear door other trolls not a cargo door. so many keyboard experts..

So the moral of the story is; Vote Repub, because this is the party of rules and regulations to keep America safe. LOL! Good luck with that one.

fillabuster - I strongly suspect that it came from an airborn Boeing 767. Close inspection of aircraft of that type should reveal exactly which one.

Of course, it may have fallen off of some other model, even one from a different manufacturer - that would more easily explain why it fell off: didn't fit "quite right" on some guy's Cessna.

barney

It just goes to show that in a disastrous economy with the airlines struggling to stay afloat

Did mitt tell you that?

When I looked up airline profits. This is the 1st that came up. Notice the last part of the headline.

"Keep Baggage Fees in Check as Airline Profits Soar"

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/16/keep-baggage-fees-in-check-as-airline-profits-soar/

Airlines have cut back maintenance to bare minimums. Furthermore, some maintenance is being outsourced to China, and there have been problems with counterfit parts.

Could you provide us with some evidence of your remarks ED.

Whether they are making huge profits or not, is not the point. In this sort of economy, they are not spending the money.

Orders for planes are being cancelled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17984492

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-22/qantas-airways-has-first-annual-loss-as-fuel-costs-rise.html

In Barney's defense:

Air Asia Company Limited (Chinese: 亞洲航空股份有限公司) is a provider of aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services headquartered on the island of Taiwan in the Republic of China. It is now located in the Tainan Airport. It is the only surviving member of the Pacific Corporation, but currently it is owned by Taiwan Aerospace Corporation and is no longer related to the CIA.

it's far safer to fly in any boing than take that car ride though chicago neighborhoods to get to the airport. How many die from airplain crashes compared to gunshot wounds in chicago?

TheRichKid, nobody disputes that aircraft maintenance is being done in China. But we're highly suspicious of the claim that "airlines" are outsourcing their maintenance there. Of course, Barney wasn't specific, so that makes it hard to dispute his claim. If an Asian airline is doing maintenance in China, then he's right. But there's an implicit assumption that he's also talking about domestic carriers, which is B.S.

And, oh by the way, the airlines are not making "huge profits".

Grumps, You should tell that to all the former Northwest Airlines mechanics who were laid off years before the Delta takeover. You could tell them it was all their imaginations that made them think they were jobless. Or maybe, the airplanes found a way to maintain themselves.

Now, all kidding aside, some of the mechanics were able to stay employed as emergency maintenance must be performed at all airports from time to time. However, the major overhaul heavy maintenance was outsourced to foreign countries.

Try asking your favorite US airline where heavy maintenance is done on their fleet. They should be able to give you the actual street address of any American facility they use, that is, if they use an American facility.

It'll have a serial number on it.