Kennet Ayala AMNT 270 Module 3 Inicdent Analysis PL1

.docx

School

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

270

Subject

English

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by AgentMeerkatMaster270

1 G73-T Aircraft Structural Failure Analysis Kennet Ayala Guadalupe Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University AMNT 270: Airframe Structures and Applications David McClelland August 27, 2023
1 G73-T Aircraft Structural Failure Analysis A structural failure on an aircraft can be caused by many different factors. Aircraft failures can be caused by a pilot error, lack of or improper maintenance, repair, or installation of a component of the aircraft. On December 19, 2005, Chalk's Ocean Airways Flight 101 suffered a catastrophic incident caused by an in-flight separation of the right-wing (NTSB, 2007, p. 1). Keeping proper documentation of major repairs and recurrent maintenance is a key element when determining aging and operational status of an aircraft; enabling manufacturers, operators, and mechanics to take appropriate actions and decisions. In December 2005, Chalk's Ocean Airways Flight 101 departed the Miami Seaplane Base (X44), heading towards Bimini, Bahamas, on a regular scheduled passenger flight. The aircraft carried a total of two flight crew members and 18 passengers. The aircraft was being operated under visual flight rules in accordance with 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 121. In accordance with the weather conditions described in the accident report, atmospheric conditions were favorable on the day of the accident (NTSB, 2007, p. 1). The airplane involved in the accident was a Grumman Turbo Mallard (G-73T) amphibious airplane. This aircraft was operated on the day of the accident from Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL) to X44 by the same flight crew involved in the accident. The airplane departed Miami Seaplane Base (X44) about 1438 and crashed into a shipping canal about one minute later. Upon the airplane's right-wing separation, an explosion was witnessed as a result of the wing separation by nearby spectators; subsequently, the aircraft descended and crashed into the waters. Upon investigation and completion, explosives were not found in the aircraft. All 20 passengers, including three lap-held infants, were found dead, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces (NTSB, 2007, p. 1).
1 Upon the collection of the remaining aircraft, the plane was reconstructed, and safety board investigators found substantial proof that it suffered fatigue on the wing box structure. After extensive investigation at the Safety Board's Materials Laboratory in Washington, D.C., fatigue fractures were found along the rear spar lower spar cap, rear Z-stringer, skin fractures, and skin cracks. Examinations found that many factors, including corrosion and fatigue in the right-wing structure, caused the fatal incident. The results from the laboratory demonstrated that a skin crack found under the doubler at right-wing station 34 started from a corroded area around the fuel sump drain and another crack initiated from a fastener hole adjacent to a Z-stringer fracture (NTSB, 2007, pp. 9). In addition to the structural failure due to fatigue, including skin cracks, the incident aircraft reports showed that the maintenance program was not followed appropriately. Maintenance logbooks did not show necessary entries and were missing data, including a major repair to the lower right wing (NTSB, 2007, p. 10). Company maintenance personnel stated that the incident aircraft was washed with fresh water during maintenance services, but there was no record of such actions or service to the aircraft. In addition, during the months of July and September 2005. In July, the incident aircraft showed fuel leaks around the left and right, and in September, leaks were found around the right-wing dry bay area. The recurrent fuel leaks were a result of an inadequate maintenance program and maintenance efforts; a thorough investigation and examination of fuel leak areas should have concluded that the leaks were a result of structural damage or failure inside the right-wing box. Maintenance personnel attempted to repair the deficiency by applying sealant around the fuel sump drain, which was only a temporary fix because there were cracks on the wing structure (NTSB, 2007, p. 11).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help