Plane's landing gear had history of problems, Thai Airways says

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Apart from the inspection intervals, the THAI air exec in the BKK Post article also talked about the problem bogie structure having a lifespan of 10 years, and saying the failed structure in the mishap aircraft dated to 2004 (-+ nine years ago).

In looking thru EASA ADs, I didn't find anything that looked like it referenced a 10-year lifespan. But there were two ADs in 2011 titled "Landing Gear – Main Landing Gear (MLG) Bogie Beam – Life Limit" that expressed the life limits for the structures in terms of flight hours (FH) or Landings (LDG). The limits pertaining to A330-300 series aircraft like the mishap aircraft appear to be the third limit listed in each section below.

The June 29, 2011 AD had the following reference:

Here's also an aviation news article on the EASA change to reduce the life limits for the part:

The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) effecting specific Airbus A330 and A340-200/-300 aeroplanes. EASA requires reduction of the existing main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam life limits and replacement of each MLG bogie beam that has already exceeded the new limit.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2011/06/30/easa-issues-emergency-ad-on-life-limits-of-a330-and-a340-landing-gear-parts/

But then an October 31, 2011 AD appeared to change those limits again:

There may be other ADs that bear on this same subject, as I didn't/couldn't do an exhaustive search. But if anyone who's more familiar with these kinds of references wants to chime in, I'm sure it would be informative.

Edited September 12, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Cuban]

This whole Airbus vs Boeing thing is totally lacking very relevant supporting data about mean time between failures, take-offs and landings per flight-mile and pressurisations etc.

As well as weather during life-cycle - these factors all affect the plane's maintenance schedule and expected failures.

Just saying Brand B is better than Brand A is superficial and somewhat naive.

I've seen that same limited argument used when comparing patient survival rates where Dr X has a better success rate than Dr Y, but fails to take account that the former only does easy operations while the later takes on much more serious cases.

[beechguy]

Apart from the inspection intervals, the THAI air exec in the BKK Post article also talked about the problem bogie structure having a lifespan of 10 years, and saying the failed structure in the mishap aircraft dated to 2004 (-+ nine years ago).

In looking thru EASA ADs, I didn't find anything that looked like it referenced a 10-year lifespan. But there were two ADs in 2011 titled "Landing Gear – Main Landing Gear (MLG) Bogie Beam – Life Limit" that expressed the life limits for the structures in terms of flight hours (FH) or Landings (LDG). The limits pertaining to A330-300 series aircraft like the mishap aircraft appear to be the third limit listed in each section below.

The June 29, 2011 AD had the following reference:

Life Limit 2011 06-29.jpg

Here's also an aviation news article on the EASA change to reduce the life limits for the part:

The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) effecting specific Airbus A330 and A340-200/-300 aeroplanes. EASA requires reduction of the existing main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam life limits and replacement of each MLG bogie beam that has already exceeded the new limit.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2011/06/30/easa-issues-emergency-ad-on-life-limits-of-a330-and-a340-landing-gear-parts/

But then an October 31, 2011 AD appeared to change those limits again:

Life Limit 2011 10-31.jpg

There may be other ADs that bear on this same subject, as I didn't/couldn't do an exhaustive search. But if anyone who's more familiar with these kinds of references wants to chime in, I'm sure it would be informative.

Simple version, first you would have to find the most current version or revision of the AD for the part or aircraft, that normally supercedes all previous ADs. Next you would have to see if the AD applies to your part number and serial number. Why have there been changes in this case? Wasn't it mentioned earlier there was a dry fit version of the part, versus wet fit? The part would have been probably modified in design, creating a new part number. Does that mean the old part can't be used anymore? Not if it meets the criteria, noted in the charts or other instruction. As to the 10 year life limit, it may not specifically state that in the AD, if it wasn't changed, or they are referencing you to other publications. One If I recall correctly, was the Airbus ALS, also you have to consider, it appears the part was manufactured by Messier-Dowty, their SBs were also mentioned, they may apply.

But, I don't know what difference this makes, according to you and others, this is all going to get white washed by Thai Government corruption. Never mind that, according to a popular english language newspaper, Thai Air stated they were assisted by Airbus representatives, during these inspections. Maybe if they spread enough money around, they can convince those guys to take one for the team. I doubt it.

Bottom line, people are human and make mistakes, machines aren't perfect, they break. What the public needs is truthful information, not spin or bullshit.

[Jay Sata]

Air Worthiness directives or AD's are common to all aircraft big or small and have been around for half a century.

There is nothing unusual or unique in them but the system has made air travel one of the safest ways of getting around.

In most accidents it is humans and not the aircraft at fault.

[Shaksey]

Air Worthiness directives or AD's are common to all aircraft big or small and have been around for half a century.

There is nothing unusual or unique in them but the system has made air travel one of the safest ways of getting around.

In most accidents it is humans and not the aircraft at fault.

Took the words out of my mouth, all aircraft get AD's through their lifetime as issues are noticed and corrected. This is just typical attempted deflection of blame by Thai Air.

[harada]

Tiger Airways are flying Singapore-Chiang Mai direct as of Oct 23 for those like myself who are looking for an alternative.

[Spare]

This whole Airbus vs Boeing thing is totally lacking very relevant supporting data about mean time between failures, take-offs and landings per flight-mile and pressurisations etc.

As well as weather during life-cycle - these factors all affect the plane's maintenance schedule and expected failures.

Just saying Brand B is better than Brand A is superficial and somewhat naive.

I've seen that same limited argument used when comparing patient survival rates where Dr X has a better success rate than Dr Y, but fails to take account that the former only does easy operations while the later takes on much more serious cases.

Really?

You must be a Daewoo driver.

Mine is a Toyota.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Air Worthiness directives or AD's are common to all aircraft big or small and have been around for half a century.

There is nothing unusual or unique in them but the system has made air travel one of the safest ways of getting around.

In most accidents it is humans and not the aircraft at fault.

As I've said before, the Thai authorities have a pretty questionable record in some of their biggest aircraft mishap investigations of starting out trying to blame/identify the wrong cause.

Specifically, claiming wind shear in the One-Two-Go crash in Phuket in 2007 when it was in fact mainly a lot of pilot error, and claiming it was a bomb/assassination attempt against Thaksin in the 2001 THAI Air jet that exploded on the ground at Don Muang, when in fact it was a spark that ignited the plane's fuel tank vapors and no bomb evidence/residue was ever found.

The common element in both, whether intentional or not, or coincidental or not, was a direction to blame the mishaps on outside/external factors (nature and politics) instead of issues with the planes, the airlines and/or their air/ground crews. And oddly enough, that direction happens to fit quite nicely with the face-saving attribute that is so common here.

So amid that history, in the latest incident, for now, let's accept THAI Air's assertion that the mishap was caused by a landing gear failure, and put aside the still unsubstantiated reports of a possible fire or other problem being reported on the plane prior to landing.

If the cause was a landing gear failure only, how would that have happened, especially considering that the suspect part in the landing gear (the bogie beam) has been a known and identified problem for years, and has been identified as the cause of similar, prior mishaps with other aircraft?

--Were the special inspection and maintenance rules and schedules put in place by the air safety agencies for the suspect part insufficient to prevent the mishap, meaning many other Airbus 330s and 340s are potentially similarly at risk?

--Did THAI Air and its maintenance crews fully comply with/perform all the special inspection and maintenance rules for the suspect part?

--Did anything extraordinary happen with the aircraft (prior hard/rough landing, etc.) that might have exacerbated the problem and hastened the failure of the landing gear?

Those are the kinds of questions, with a lot of potential human factors involved, that hopefully a competent accident investigation would address. So now the question is, will this aircraft mishap get a competent accident investigation or a politically constrained one?

Edited September 13, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[rosst]

The other thing that could be commented on, Thai have already concluded that this failure is due to a faulty part ? Referencing the AD the failure talked about one assumes is a fatigue failure, therefore I am very impressed that the thai technical services has managed to get the metallography, micro graphs, and one presumes the SEM studies of the fracture surfaces done so quickly to come to the conclusion that the root cause of the failure was due to a fatigue failure as a result of a faulty component.

In the west these sorts of studies, would take some weeks to do and conclusions drawn

Personally I think what has happened is that Thai have come across this AD, or where fully aware of it and as a knee jerk reaction, but the blame squarely on this and by default airbus without fully completing an investigation.

Yes, I was thinking along those lines myself, did the beam cause the problem or did the problem cause the beam fracture. The tests will demonstrate this and I do believe there is enough in the public domain about this to ensure the real reason will be known and I do believe we will find out.

Personally, I believe the beam has not been properly tested or replaced at the correct interval having seen the information we are now privy to.

Note, I said I believe, I do not have any proof but I will wait and see.

[bangon04]

So basically it comes to whether or not Thai airways complied with the AD notice ( Airworthiness Directive) on the landing gear.

Airbus will not allow Thailand to sweep this under the rug, with implied blame on the plane. So the truth on this issue will come

out at some point.

Let us once more hope that the truth will be forced out by international pressure. It sure won't be if THAI has anything to do with it...

[jacko45k]

Airbus gear has had a history of problems. I really don't like flying them.

Really..... more than the 787?

[beechguy]

Air Worthiness directives or AD's are common to all aircraft big or small and have been around for half a century.

There is nothing unusual or unique in them but the system has made air travel one of the safest ways of getting around.

In most accidents it is humans and not the aircraft at fault.

As I've said before, the Thai authorities have a pretty questionable record in some of their biggest aircraft mishap investigations of starting out trying to blame/identify the wrong cause.

Specifically, claiming wind shear in the One-Two-Go crash in Phuket in 2007 when it was in fact mainly a lot of pilot error, and claiming it was a bomb/assassination attempt against Thaksin in the 2001 THAI Air jet that exploded on the ground at Don Muang, when in fact it was a spark that ignited the plane's fuel tank vapors and no bomb evidence/residue was ever found.

The common element in both, whether intentional or not, or coincidental or not, was a direction to blame the mishaps on outside/external factors (nature and politics) instead of issues with the planes, the airlines and/or their air/ground crews. And oddly enough, that direction happens to fit quite nicely with the face-saving attribute that is so common here.

So amid that history, in the latest incident, for now, let's accept THAI Air's assertion that the mishap was caused by a landing gear failure, and put aside the still unsubstantiated reports of a possible fire or other problem being reported on the plane prior to landing.

If the cause was a landing gear failure only, how would that have happened, especially considering that the suspect part in the landing gear (the bogie beam) has been a known and identified problem for years, and has been identified as the cause of similar, prior mishaps with other aircraft?

--Were the special inspection and maintenance rules and schedules put in place by the air safety agencies for the suspect part insufficient to prevent the mishap, meaning many other Airbus 330s and 340s are potentially similarly at risk?

--Did THAI Air and its maintenance crews fully comply with/perform all the special inspection and maintenance rules for the suspect part?

--Did anything extraordinary happen with the aircraft (prior hard/rough landing, etc.) that might have exacerbated the problem and hastened the failure of the landing gear?

Those are the kinds of questions, with a lot of potential human factors involved, that hopefully a competent accident investigation would address. So now the question is, will this aircraft mishap get a competent accident investigation or a politically constrained one?

More spin from a guy that can't even read the ADs, great.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Beech, do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread...or just keep repeating the same old personal attacks...

At least I took the time to find, read and actually post copies of the pertinent A330 Air Worthiness Directives here... As far as I can see, in your various posts, you've contributed very little of any information or substance at all.

Edited September 13, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[beechguy]

Beech, do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread...or just keep repeating the same old personal attacks...

At least I took the time to find, read and actually post copies of the pertinent A330 Air Worthiness Directives here... As far as I can see, in your various posts, you've contributed very little of any information or substance at all.

Not personal attacks, simply pointing out how ignorant you are of the aviation business, and that people should take that into consideration. Even when I do put factual information in front of you, you still can't recognize it.

Edited September 13, 2013 by beechguy

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I'll keep waiting for you to offer something constructive... I suspect it will be a long wait.

One doesn't have to be a mechanic (and probably best not be) to understand how politics works in Thailand, to see how it has impacted past accident investigations, and to recognize that the various big players in this matter each have their own interests that may have nothing to do with a complete and unbiased mishap investigation.

Right now... our back and forths are just wasting forum space... Why don't we call a truce here, and leave each of us to our respective views.

Edited September 13, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[negreanu]

Thaivisa, The Hub of Armchair aviation experts...

[dogeatdog]

Ok guys my turn please. I try to bring some enlightenment to this comversation.

Firstly im a B1/B2 type A320 A330/340 B737NG and have 26 years in the business so hopefully I know a little bit by now.

Dont want to discuss the thai event just a little bit about regulations.

First of all AD's. Airworthy directives can be the most complex of all engineering documents to read and will always refer to may other documentation for compliance. As for the AD's that are issued for airbus unless you have access to Airbus World and have thaiairways company code and know the MSN for the effectivity then you cant fully understand the nature and purpose of the AD. I doubt many people hear have that access. What I am saying here you cant just pluck an AD from a website and read and understand. It does not work that way. Many errors have been made in maintenance by people with the upmost good intentions that have miss read the intension of the AD.

AD's are issued in various form by the regulatory authority.  Most Common for us is USA and FAA and Europe ie 32 member states under EASA. Other countries have there own regulatory authority and will comply with there own regulations. In the case of thailand this falls under DCA.

AD's are issued upon findings with equiment that may or have resulted in a unsafe conditions. In most cases the AD will refer back to a previous Servive bulletin which was issued by the OEM.

Ok newsflash.

Aircraft registered in US "N" and aircraft from other countries who wish to operate to and from and within the US have to comply with AD's which is mandatory these are issued by the FAA and equipment is maintained under FAR145. note; Service bulletins are not mandatory.

Aircraft registered in EU 32 states and aircraft from other countries who wish to operate to and from and within the 32 member states have to comply with AD's which is mandatory these are issued by the EASA and equipment is maintained under EASA145.

Not all FAA AD's are adopted by EASA and vice versa. So if in basic terms an Eu aircraft registed and operated in eu and it is known that aircraft will Never operate in the US then it Does Not have to comply with FAA requirements and vice versa too.

So back to thailand. "Technically" an aircraft registered and operated within thailand Does Not have to comply with either FAA or EASA regulations it is maintained under the DCA and it is up to them which AD's they want to adopt if any. Take a look at African Aviation.

But in reality because most aircraft are leased and the aircraft has a potential to be leased world wide then the aircraft will normally be kept up todate with both EASA and FAA AD's.

Another point there is also a system called Alternative Means if Complance. AMC. Can exspand on this later if someones wants?

Remember guys the aviation industry is one where by the regulators of the commercial bussiness is also the safety regulator too. Kind of a conflict of interest.

I will answer one comment from above. The life components. The life of all "lifed" components are contained in something called chapter 05. For "some" equiment there can be 2 life limits. One limit can be based on hours and landings or cycles and the other will be calander based.

Example. MLG component could be 18000 landings or 15 years which ever comes first. Contrary to belief a component will not self distruct upon reaching these limits. They are safe operation limits. There are also hard limits and soft limits. Hard meaning retire from service scrap and soft remove apply maintenence mybe service bulletins and return. Depends this is another subject.

These life limits are constantly been amended based apon experience. Life limits can be incresed and reduced.

Questions??

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

But in reality because most aircraft are leased and the aircraft has a potential to be leased world wide then the aircraft will normally be kept up todate with both EASA and FAA AD's.

Thanks for those various explanations above.. Very useful and informative.

So in essence, at least for their international aircraft, you're assuming THAI Air ought to be generally operating within compliance for both FAA and EASA ADs?

One of the questions I had running through all this what how much was controlled by Thai DCA vs. how much by FAA/EASA.

[dogeatdog]

Ok. Yes it should be found that all aircraft operating too the 32 member states and to the US will/should be controlled and maintained under regulations regarding to 3rd countries and continued airworthiness requirements FAA & EASA.

Given the fact that the operator in question is member of the star alliance there will be some regulatory requirements contain within this too.

The DCA thailand is the controlling authorty thus is charged with also controlling the bussiness factors within the insdustry and not just the saftey aspect.

If the authorty wishes there airlines within thailand to remain in good standing and in world wide operation ie not end up being banned or on black lists then for sure it will follow and adopt most/all recomendations contained within publications from other regulatory authorities and OEM's etc...

However applications can be made for effectively "Alternative means of compliance" if the the Authorty have concerns that too adopt a requirement could effect the economic side of the bussiness. Its up too the originating authority to decide if the proposals given are excepted or not.

Sorry aviation is not black or white. Kind of grey at times.

[EyesWideOpen]

Dogeatdog quote:
So back to thailand. "Technically" an aircraft registered and operated within thailand Does Not have to comply with either FAA or EASA regulations it is maintained under the DCA and it is up to them which AD's they want to adopt if any. Take a look at African Aviation.

Wow, that is the scary statement of the week. So if Thai Airways, or any other non USA or Eu airliner owns

the aircraft directly, and flys that aircraft only in their country, they can then maintain the aircraft in any condition they wish?? No need to comply with those pesky and time consuming AD notifications ??? I am stunned....... The term Africa Aviation does not bring up happy images.

Edited September 14, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[Bagwan]

The question in my mind is whether or not aircraft of other airlines have suffered such a catastrophic component failure - and if not, why not.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Re EyesWideOpen's comment: No... I think the situation Dog was talking about was an actual aircraft that was only being flown domestically inside Thailand or some other country...and not to any EU or U.S. locations. If an airplane was only flying inside Thailand, then I gather "technically," it could operate under whatever rules the Thai DCA chose to enforce.

But THAI is an international carrier... and many of their jets do go to U.S. and EU locations, and so those at least would have to comply with those jurisdictions' guidelines. And of course, aircraft don't always only fly to one location. They change and are re-assigned as market conditions and operational needs warrant.

Note he noted:

Aircraft registered in US "N" and aircraft from other countries who wish to operate to and from and within the US have to comply with AD's which is mandatory these are issued by the FAA and equipment is maintained under FAR145. note; Service bulletins are not mandatory.

Aircraft registered in EU 32 states and aircraft from other countries who wish to operate to and from and within the 32 member states have to comply with AD's which is mandatory these are issued by the EASA and equipment is maintained under EASA145.

It's not just about where the operating airline is based. It's also about where its aircraft fly to and from.

In this mishap case, the aircraft I gather was flying between China and Thailand. So I guess one question would be, does THAI maintain different maintenance/equipment standards for their aircraft on domestic and non-US/EU routes? It sounds like they could technically, but I'm guessing they don't... Just guessing, though.

The THAI Air maintenance exec quoted in the BKK Post the other day regarding the inspection standards for the mishap aircraft seemed to be talking about inspection timeframes that correspond to the U.S. and E.U. directives for the suspect bogie beam part in the landing gear.

Edited September 14, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[dogeatdog]

Basically yes. However very few countries will adopt this approch as it is so restrictive in operations.

The regulations and the control for all authorties only deal with aircraft personal and equipment operating within and too and from there area of control.

The FAA nor EASA control world aviation.

More intersting is the fact that the full requirements of the basic regulations only apply to equipment operating too/from and within. Aircraft just flying over or within the airspace comes under another regulation and may or may not need to fully comply with the basic regulations.

Lets not detract too far from the OP.

The point to my post is that you can not just pick infomation about contining airworthy requirements from another well known website and try to apply them by reading a few paragraphs. Does not work that way.

Yes there are a few pictures circulating the web showing similarties in resulting damage to MUC airfield in 2007 but thats all it shows, nothing more.

Yes all previous events involving MLG. ATA32 including bogie beam assy's will be looked at closely.

But If you take a look at all AD's and SB's dealing with equipment from Messier‑Bugatti‑Dowty you will find many many different occurrences which have been detected in the past which may result in an unsafe condition.

This is across all oem's boeing and airbus too. Same OEM guys. Messier‑Bugatti‑Dowty is a company that produce nearly all undercart system in use today.

[EyesWideOpen]

As I said before, whatever the wishes of Thai Airways are regarding trying to cover this up,

it simply will not happen with Airbus involved. The truth will be revealed in time as an absolute.

But I doubt that truth will be front page headlines 4 months from now. More likely on the back

page of an airline tech journal. I do not recall front page headlines on the 1-2 Go crash in Phuket

saying there was massive pilot error involved.

Choice A : Some form of pilot error, perhaps a really hard landing that was not reported

Choice B : A defective landing gear, in which case not a lot of people will be flying A 330 planes anymore

Choice C: Poor maintenance in which Thai Airways did not comply with an AD notice on the landing gear.

In the court of public opinion, I would have to say Thai Airways is probably the winner right now. To date they

have implied everything they did was fine, and thus the problem was the landing gear. Airbus cannot really

respond yet without a full inspection of the gear. That is if Thai Airways lets them inspect the gear... :-)

Edited September 14, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The question in my mind is whether or not aircraft of other airlines have suffered such a catastrophic component failure - and if not, why not.

I believe the answer to that is yes.... if by catastrophic you mean the extent of the component failure -- not issues of how many people were injured and the resulting damage to the broader aircraft.

As I quoted an EASA AirWorthiness Directive from 2012 in post #58 in this thread:

The operator of an A330 aeroplane (which has a common bogie beam with the

A340) reported a fracture of the right-hand (RH) main landing gear (MLG) bogie

beam, which occurred while turning during low speed taxi maneuvers. The bogie

fractured aft of the pivot point and remained attached to the sliding tube by the

brake torque reaction rods. After this RH bogie failure, the aeroplane continued

for approximately 40 meters on the forks of the sliding member before coming to

rest on the taxiway.

The preliminary investigations revealed that this event was due to corrosion

pitting occurring on the bore of the bogie beam. Investigations are ongoing to

determine why bogie beam internal paint has been degraded, leading to a loss of

cadmium plating, thereby allowing development of corrosion pitting.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a runway excursion

event or to detachment of the bogie from the aeroplane, or to MLG collapse,

possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

Here's a link on the Munich incident from 2007 mentioned above along with a photo:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/289643-failed-a330-lg-bogie-beam-during-taxi.html

Meanwhile, here's the accident report with photos for a somewhat similar bogie beam collapse in Singapore in 2005 with an A320 that also messed up the runway:

26 Nov 2005.pdf

Edited September 14, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Interestingly, in the Singapore collapse, according to the accident report, the landing gear that collapsed had previously been overhauled and then put into the airplane.

In the wake of the accident, the investigation determined that the original overhaul process, which only involved visual inspection, had failed to detect corrosion that was present at the time.

In the aftermath, the report notes:

4.2 The MLG manufacturer has since the incident amended the overhaul
procedure to require removing the cadmium on the lower cross bolt
hole, using a 10 times magnification lens for corrosion and crack
detection during overhaul, and carrying out a magnetic particle
inspection on the area to detect corrosion pitting.

So it would seem, it's not just a matter of carrying out inspections on a particular schedule, but also HOW those inspections are performed.

Also, if you read the full Singapore report, you'll see that they did A LOT of scientific analysis post the mishap of the failed parts in an effort to determine WHY they had failed and what led to the failure, including analysis by a Singapore entity, Messier-Dowty and a lab in France.

You have to wonder whether the same degree of analysis will be performed here.

BTW, the Singapore accident investigation final report was issued in July 2009, more than three and a half years after the original Nov 2005 incident.

Edited September 14, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Thai Airways orders inspection of Airbus A330s after landing gear collapse warned of in 2011

• Article by: JOCELYN GECKER , Associated Press
• Updated: September 13, 2013 - 9:15 AM

BANGKOK — Thai Airways said Friday it will inspect its entire Airbus A330 fleet after this week's accident involving a model that Europe's air safety authority had warned years ago has a defective part in its landing gear.

Airbus said it has launched a parallel investigation.

Airline officials said they had taken the recommended precautions for Airbus A330-300s, but were investigating why the maintenance failed to prevent a mishap outlined in a June 2011 directive from the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Sunday's flight from Guangzhou, China, landed smoothly at Bangkok's international airport, but a preliminary investigation showed that its right-side landing gear collapsed as it sped down the runway, said Montree Jumrieng, executive vice president for Thai Airway's technical department.

The plane then skidded off the runway as sparks flew from an engine scraping against the ground. Fourteen people were injured, most while evacuating an emergency slides.

"We have ordered an inspection on the landing gear of our entire Airbus A330 fleet," said Montree. "So far, we have not found any other problems."

..............................

"We took all the precautions according to the airworthiness directive," he said, adding that inspectors had never detected cracked bogie beams but had replaced several found to be rusty.

MORE:

FWIW, the Singapore mishap report appears to say that it was pitting and corrosion at the beginning that led to stress fractures and ultimately led to the component failure.

[dogeatdog]

Re EyesWideOpen's comment: No... I think the situation Dog was talking about was an actual aircraft that was only being flown domestically inside Thailand or some other country...and not to any EU or U.S. locations. If an airplane was only flying inside Thailand, then I gather "technically," it could operate under whatever rules the Thai DCA chose to enforce.

But THAI is an international carrier... and many of their jets do go to U.S. and EU locations, and so those at least would have to comply with those jurisdictions' guidelines. And of course, aircraft don't always only fly to one location. They change and are re-assigned as market conditions and operational needs warrant.

In this mishap case, the aircraft I gather was flying between China and Thailand. So I guess one question would be, does THAI maintain different maintenance/equipment standards for their aircraft on domestic and non-US/EU routes?  It sounds like they could technically, but I'm guess. 

100% correct for the first 2.

Technicaly yes you would only have to comply with thailand DCA. However this is unlikely to manifest itself.

The biggest problem with this is inssurance. (Aircraft/Airline insurance is provides by international companies and you unlikely get insurance operating like this)

2nd problem your asset ie aircraft is now worthless can never be sold too mainstream countries as it would cost too much to bring back up to the required status.

As to the answer the question in regard to diffent maintenance practices.

Basic default answer No ( however there are exceptions as allways in aviation)

Basically it has to be a uniform system coming from something called MOE "maintaince organisation exposition" (in the west.)

It is a document required to be drafted by the company before certificate to carry out maintenance will be issued. It will demonstrate how your company is organised, your business your facilities and what equipment you will maintain and how you are going to maintain your equipment. It will not differenciate between aircraft MSN.

In reality there is little detail within this it normally will just reference to where you can find out details. So in essence all equipment has to maintained in the same way.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Meanwhile, this German aviation website, via Google translate, has a photo and description of what happened with the Emirates aircraft at Munich in 2007. The Munich background is added onto the article that leads with the current THAI Air mishap:

Six years ago, documented the Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of the accident of a A330-200 at Munich Airport.

The Emirates aircraft rolled 17 August 2007 just as the bearer of the right main landing gear gave way to runway 26L in the region behind the shock absorber strut connection. "By breaking the rear axle was completely separated with the two rear wheels," the AAIB stated in the then monthly bulletin.

Even the airplane Emirates pulled the emergency brake at slow speed setting of a deep notch in the asphalt.

Despite this serious incident EASA ordered in December 2008, a general, specific mandatory inspections of its hazardous Bogie Beams at ( EASA AD 2008-0223 ).

http://www.aero.de/news-18178/Landeunfall-A330-Betreiber-checken-Fahrwerktraeger.html

Edited September 14, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

So actually, the AP was being kind of generous in the news report above talking about a prior EASA warning in 2011. While the 2011 reference is correct, as I noted in a prior post here, there were a variety of directives on the bogie beam problem dating back to at least 2007-2008.

Here's the EASA 2008 AD that was mentioned above in the German news report:

EASA_AD_2008-0223.pdf

Reason: During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the MLG, the bogie stop pad
was found deformed and cracked. Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for
replacement, the bogie beam was also found cracked.

Laboratory investigation indicates that an overload event has occurred and no
fatigue propagation of the crack was evident. An investigation is still underway
to establish the root cause of this overload.

A second bogie beam crack has subsequently been found on another aircraft,
located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial paint damage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the aircraft
departing the runway or to the bogie detaching from the aircraft or gear
collapses, which would all constitute unsafe conditions at speeds above
30 knots.

As a precautionary measure, this AD requires detailed inspections under the
bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams and, in case deformation or damage
is detected, to apply the associated repair.

Edited September 14, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK