# Passengers revolt after being told to fly on jet with its wing tip missing



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2007)

Passengers revolt after being told to fly on jet with its wing tip missing
By DANIEL BOFFEY - More by this author » Last updated at 21:43pm on 3rd November 2007

Passengers revolt after being told to fly on jet with its wing tip missing | the Daily Mail

An airline crew faced a rebellion when they told passengers they were going to fly on a jet that had lost its wing tip in a runway crash.

The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours.

So they were amazed to be boarding the same plane next day for the ten-hour flight to Colombo.

Scroll down for more...
2007/10_03/PrangAP_468x319.jpg

Wreckage: Part of one of the wing tips lies on the runway

When cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5ft wing tip missing, there was "a minor revolt" as seven passengers demanded to be let off the aircraft.

A further two-hour delay followed as their baggage was removed before the aircraft could take off.

Club-class passenger Ian McKie, 54, from Loughton, Essex, said: "We were put up in hotels the night of the crash and next morning we were told we would be on a different plane that day.

"We only realised that we were actually going on the same aircraft when we got to the Club lounge and saw the plane but without its wing tip."

The former policeman, who was jetting off for a two-week holiday with his partner Gill Stone, 52, added: "On board, the cabin crew admitted that it was the same one as last time and that the tip had been ripped off.

Scroll down for more...
2007/10_03/HeathrowAccRUK_468x310.jpg

A closer view shows the broken wing on the BA 747

"They assured us it didn't matter but a number of the passengers insisted that they would rather get on the next flight."

The collision happened shortly after 10pm two weeks ago when the BA011 flight to Singapore was waiting on a runway, followed by the SriLankan Airbus.

The SriLankan aircraft wing ripped through the BA flight's wing, tearing off a huge chunk and resulting in the BA jumbo being grounded.

SriLankan Airlines insisted there was no danger in flying without a wing tip.

It added: "They are purely for aerodynamics and to keep fuel costs to a minimum. There is no impact on safety at all. Safety is our absolute priority."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Bullshit! I would not fly on that aircraft either.

As an aircraft mechanic I can tell that that wing had to be inspected for further damage including cracks throughout the wing and it would never be allowed to fly until that section of the wing is replaced.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 4, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>I would not fly on that aircraft either.

I'd insist they'd rip the other wingtip off too, to restore symmetry 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

Actually there's nothing wrong with it - the winglet is all composite and there's a good chance that most of impact was absorbed at the winglet, but I would inspect the outer structure of the wing. During flight there would be little indication of the missing portion of the winglet but range would be affected.

With that said, should that aircraft be carrying passengers - NO! Not only for the liability but for the lack of professionalism by the carrier to continue to attempt to make revenue on a damaged aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually there's nothing wrong with it - the winglet is all composite and there's a good chance that most of impact was absorbed at the winglet, but I would inspect the outer structure of the wing. During flight there would be little indication of the missing portion of the winglet but range would be affected.



Really? Wow you learn something new every day!

I was basing my post off of my experience (I dont have large comercial aircraft experience like you do) with helicopters. For instance the Blackhawk has a *tip cap* which is made of composite material. It is meant to take damage so the blades dont. However when the tip cap hits something it can cause cracks in the rest of the blade.

I would have figured that wing might have cracks in the outparts especially on the trailing edge that came into contact during the collision.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Really? Wow you learn something new every day!
> 
> I was basing my post off of my experience (I dont have large comercial aircraft experience like you do) with helicopters. For instance the Blackhawk has a *tip cap* which is made of composite material. It is meant to take damage so the blades dont. However when the tip cap hits something it can cause cracks in the rest of the blade.


Those winglets are just a built on assembly if I'm not mistaken. Aside from any nav light wiring I would guess an older model 747 wingtip would fit in there just fine and maybe that's what they should of tried to do instead of flying it like that with passengers on board.


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would have figured that wing might have cracks in the outparts especially on the trailing edge that came into contact during the collision.


That's exactly what I would inspect for.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2007)

Either way, the British authorities should have not allowed that plane to leave the airport untill it was certified as safe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Either way, the British authorities should have not allowed that plane to leave the airport untill it was certified as safe.


Oh I bet you some BA engineer or maintenance type signed off on the aircraft being airworthy, and it probably was, it was just unprofessional to fly an aircraft in a revenue state like that.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2007)

The B-747 would have been safe enough to fly, there's no question of that. And the British authorities (the CAA being world renowned for safety) would not have allowed it to fly unless deemed safe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The B-747 would have been safe enough to fly, there's no question of that. And the British authorities (the CAA being world renowned for safety) would not have allowed it to fly unless deemed safe.


Agree!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

What I am suprised though is that they did not do some sort of accident investigation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

Oh I bet they did - it does seem pretty open and shut. Here the Feds don't seem to get too upset over ground mishaps unless theres an injury.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2007)

The CAA would most likely be continuing their investigation; that is, of course, if it's not already been dealt with. Every accident is investigated in Britain - it's one area that the British authorities are actually good at their job.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2007)

I'll even bet there was probably even a call to Boeing from the servicing people probably BA


----------

