Back to Squawk list
  • 46

Wing Detaches From Airplane Upon Landing

Photographs of the wrecked aircraft show failure of the center wing box’s rear attachments to the fuselage. ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ken young 9
KInd of makes one question the logic of US based companies sending manufacturing to China...Just sayin'
Wellp, Land Rover found out the hard way when they knocked off a LR and called it the "LandWind" (how original!). :D

And Volvo is starting to build their cars in China, too. Wouldn't surprise me if they knocked off *that* and called it a "Revolvo".

China had to ground all their newly-built mil jets(!!) due to "quality issues".

Like, *seriously*, who'd want to risk his/her life to fly in a China-built a/c?!?
djames225 1
And yet a lot of people buy that China made stuff and love Apple products
To be fair, most time you don't have a choice (I've *looked* for made-in-USA or at least not-made-in-China fans, air compressors, drills, etc., and couldn't find any), especially with electronics.

A big dog like Apple *MIGHT* be able to wield some clout and make sure quality is up-to-snuff, else they'd hit the mfrs with penalties (reject whole lots, refuse to pay, etc.), but smaller businesses find out the hard way about corner-cutting, quality issues, etc., only after-the-fact, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Eg, I got 2 portable chargers (10Ahr), one for me and one for the gf, and hers was already going wonky. Press the *case* and it acted like a pushbutton switch, flickering off the front display! Obvious bad solder joints, interconnects, etc.

So you take it back to the store and get a replacement, and it's "no big deal", especially if it happens infrequently enough. Even 1% failure means you'd have to buy quite a few to find a bad one, but spread across lots and lots of people, it's still cost-effective for the company. (Pay back pennies, still reap dollars.)

In the air, though, nuh-uh. That's why you *screw* on the plug wires vs snapping them on like on a car's engine.

Like I said, I wouldn't risk flying on Happy Lucky Sun Moon Star Airlines.
djames225 1
The problem is there is a choice to stand up and take jobs back but as you pointed out, many get complacient (sp*) and go for a name brand not careing where its made as long as it works and the big companies can continue to make money but cheap out sourceing...Ive worked in computers for years and its funny to hear fellow techs swaer at and about Fox Conna (a China based electronics manufacture of motherboards et all) and how they wouldnt buy any of their crap...then they pull out their Apple laptop or iPad and start playing on it (Fox Conn made for Apple)
I will gladly fly on any Antonov aircraft out there and have, but as you said, I wouldnt risk flying in a China made aircraft
Wellp, things were so bad at Foxconn that workers were literally jumping out of windows to kill themselves. That kind of demoralisation, no wonder quality was crap.

China excels at cheap copying. Even if you as a mfr specify a *very* specific grade of high-temp glass-reinforced engineering plastic, the local subcontractor might "find" a cheaper grade of plastic that's "the same thing" (but *isn't*!!). They might reduce your prices, but more often than not, just pocket the difference.

In some circles, in some types of products, that kind of thinking and "initiative" is to be rewarded. But if you're making an engine cover that needs to withstand 700deg and resist being soaked in oil and still not warp or melt, and the plastic is substituted for cheap nylon, you'll only find out when you start getting hit with recalls that they did a surreptitious substitution.

Therein lies the problem. Take high strength a/c aluminum and substitute that with Chinese Mystery Metal, and you can get stress fractures, embrittlement, etc., and have the whole wingbox just detach from the rest without notice! (Eg, just goggle "embrittlement liberty ships" for some fun reading.)

So not just no, but *Hell no*, I wouldn't fly on a MIC a/c.
thor nibus 7
damned duct tape failed again
john cook 1
Should have used Gorilla Tape !
Miles Fink 1
They should try super glue!
bbabis 5
Lowering the horizontal tail to make the "design" look like their own was the biggest of many mistakes. The Dash-8's T-tail is not for looks. It keeps the horizontal tail from being blank by the main wing at higher angles of attack, such as landings. No wonder this aircraft has a high number of hard landings resulting in gear failures and runway excursions. The fact the wing breaks off on some of these is just poor materials and workmanship.
honza nl 2
this plane has just as much to do with the Dash 8 as a 747 is just a lenghtened copy of the Antonov 24 which always had the horizontal tail there where it is, just like the Fokker 27/50.
bbabis 7
The An24 is a reverse engineered copy in itself. Many suffer the same fates, landing accidents and wing box failures. So it appears that the Chinese did no better than the Russians. You are also correct. None of them have much in common with the 747.
djames225 1
May I ask what the AN24 is a reverse engineered copy of?...the AN24 was a great craft until its assembly was shut down in 1978 by USSR..China's Xian was building the licenced reverse engineered Y7 but wanted to westernize it so they built the MA60 using western engines and avionics..and they still cant get it right.
bbabis 1
The Fairchild F27, later the FH227 and Fokker 50.
djames225 1
The Fairchild F-27 was a licensed version of the Fokker F27...Fokker having funding help from the Dutch governement, signed an agreement with Fairchild to build the designated F-27 for the US Market...the AN24 original design in 1952 called for the bogie landing gear to be in the body much like its other craft, but that meant giving up valuable seating for passengers so the gear was later opted for wing mount...most if not all Antonov craft use the high mount wing design to allow remote aircraft landing where there is no landing strip so as dirt, rocks and debris wont enter the engine or damage the wings.
jbqwik 12
somewhere on that plane is a tag that reads "Made In China"
Gene Nowak 6
Does anyone wonder why that plane is not authorized to fly in the USA or Europe?
Jim Quinn 3
You are correct, Sir. The article does mention that it is a Chinese aircraft. Surprise, surprise....
djames225 1
Its stamped on its underbelly, wings, engines, etc
Robin Shaw 3
Couldn't just by de Havillands, always have to make a cheap knock-off.
Well, there you go.........
mike SUT 3
I still wouldn't fly on that aircraft. If all it takes to tear the wings of it is for the props to make contact with the ground, tells me they are not structurally attached well enough. I agree on the G's comment, I would be scared witless in light turbulence nevermind if Moderate.
I know that the PRC has wanted to make their own jet engine, and that has been said by industry watchers that the lack of a viable engine is the only thing stopping China from competing in the market place with Airbus and Boeing.

Looks like they still need an airplane too.

bbabis 3
Rear spare attachment failure? I wouldn't pull too many g's in their J-20.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. Especially in China
As much as I would like to see some parts of China, one thing in particular is keeping me away, and that is the Chinese attitude to aircraft design and construction. It's the same as Chinese made hand and power tools. They look thew same, cost a little bit less, but just don't bloody work more than a few minutes. I really don't fancy flying across the Pacific/Atlantic or any ocean in a Chinese copy of a 747, A380 or any other current aircraft. Until their aircraft have to meet the same design and construction parameters of US & European manufacturers, the ban on their flights to the US and Europe ( & Australia/New Zealand ) must remain in place.
. . . . . Built from the ground up with detailed step-by-step instructions from IKEA.
Not enough engineering. Too many hard landings by ham fisted pilots. Been there, feels like gear is coming up through floor, flight attendants just grin, glad they survived another landing.
linbb 1
Stupid headline as it didn't detach on landing as it landed hard breaking the fuse behind the wing and then other structure failed.
mike SUT 1
Didn't see where "it landed hard" in the article? The "bang" the passenger heard right before he lost consciousness might have been the box separating and him being hit by luggage or debris. A hard landing that could cause that much damage would probably compress so many spines that nobody would have able to walk off that aircraft not to mention flatten the underside of the aircraft.
Cal Keegan 1
A quick google images search for ma60 shows multiple other ones broken up like that.

Interesting it's had landing gear problems, not unlike the Dash 8, which it somewhat resembles.
bbabis 1
Somewhat resembles? Revers engineered like most Chinese products. Just not as good as the originals.
Cal Keegan 1
The Dash 8 has a T-tail and the MA60 does not; they are not identical.
bbabis 1
Obviously that is not the only thing they changed.
djames225 1
And yet the AN24, which it is a reverse designed copy from, had very very few issues with a mater of fact, many AN24's landed quite successfully on nothing but dirt, ice and mud
djames225 1
The it being the MA60 is a reverse copy of the AN24.
See what you mean about the Google images search. Doesn't instill much confidence in the type...
John Moore 1
Good maintenance and good inspection schedule's should normally find this sort of failure before it gets this extreme.
TWA55 1
Looking forward to their lunar enterprize, good luck w/ that...
johntalley1 1
this is why i will never fly on a chinese airline. pilots that are very poorly trained and aircraft that are badly maintained.
I hope Boeing isn't building too much There.
dcmeigs 1
Aviation week has much smarter reporting on this here:

It seems the failure was a result of a runway overshoot. Landing gear sinking in soft soils put such a moment on the wing the box failed. This may be just as the designer intended. If so, it's rather brilliant when you think about it. If the design calls for the box to be the frangible link, this kind of failure occurs and nobody dies. Note there was no fuel spilled and no fire. If the structure was stronger, the one of the wing mounted landing gear would likely have failed instead with consequent wing damage, fuel loss and fire, not to mention the violent yawing that would occur. Or if the structure were even stronger, the entire fuselage would likely flip like a C-172 in that circumstance. Better to walk away from an ugly wreak...
727stretch 1
If that is how the design was intended to function, then why has this happened multiple times in the past year, all under different circumstances?
Reminds me of my primary instructor calling Wun Wing Lo.
djames225 1
And the after affect from Ho Flung Dung

[This poster has been suspended.]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

