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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...a_source=&ct=5

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.


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.

"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."

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...AP_468x319.jpg

In the picture it looks like the BA airplane is the one with the wingtip ripped off.

I think airbus winglets and fences are in the CDL. They aren't needed.

im a little confused by that picture as well?

another reason passengers should'nt be allowed windows

lol.. god forbid they enjoy the flight. :p

I know there is a CDL for the -400 winglets as well, but I do understand how a passenger who doesn't know any better could be uncomfortable.

Heh, 'they are just for aerodynamics'. Isn't what the whole damn airplane is for?

I believe you're correct. I seem to recall seeing a picture of a A330 in KLM colors taking off with one winglet missing. I'll try and find it.

EDIT:

Wrong. KLM 747 PH-BFA http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983281/L/

I guess exp96 is also correct about the 744 CDL!

For your enjoyment or curiosity or whatever, here's some pictures of some more clipped birds.

EDIT2:
Finally figured out how to insert HTML. Good thing I know about technology, with all those computers flying us around. Ugh. Maybe not. This is frustrating. OK Finally figured it out.

Here's a video of an A330 missing a winglet taking off:
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...ideo-7698.html

You're so right! We don't allow our passengers to have windows. Oh yeah, they're boxes. Seriously though, wasn't there just an A-380, maybe in Bangkok, which while taxiing hit a hanger and damaged it's winglet. They took the winglet off and flew the jet. I'm not an aerodynamics expert, but don't they just provide fuel economy, not lift?

typical. Its amazing how many pilots and aero experts you'll find in every passenger flight.

What everyone seems to forget is that the passengers were sent to a hotel because the airplane was 'not airworthy' . They show up the next day and they are put on the same airplane that was not airworthy hours earlier, and it shows no signs of repair. Be careful what you tell passengers, because they do remember, and it can come back on you as it did in this case.

This is the point, and it shows poor service on the part of the airline. But Im wondering if the facts are straight. There are no shots of the A340 with its winglet ripped off, just the BA744. I even saw it on the local news last night, for whatever thats worth and it was the same picture.

Too bad they didn't post the comments I sent into the daily UK, whatchamacallit. The only thing interesting about the paper was Jane Seymour's implants.

The 747-400 has relief to allow it to fly with missing winglets. Presumably, the BA mechanics would either remove it or speed tape it into something a little more aerodynamic. The weight penalty is pretty substantial, but if 7 knuckleheaded passengers get off the plane, then no need to worry about the weight penalty...they(the penalty) just got off the plane.

FF

Depending on the airplane, etc, winglets can as much as double the effective length of the wing.

B.S.



(filler)

But if the A340 winglet damaged the 747 one, even if it wasn't ripped off it would probably be safer to remove it and fly back, than risk it falling off in flight.

I only have 2 type ratings so I'm no expert, but both airplanes have winglets, and both were CDL items. Take em off, add a fuel burn penalty and go. Another vote for no pax windows. :D

Agreed. My point is that it appears the news may be misrepresenting the facts.

Aaaah, Say it ain't so. :)

When the 747-400 was relatively new to UAL, they had a winglet get damaged and it was removed. As there was no performance data available, the aircraft was restricted to domestic routes by the FAA.