national

60-kg part of wing breaks off cargo plane while landing at Narita airport

21 Comments

A 60-kilogram part of a wing broke off a Nippon Cargo Airlines plane as it landed at Narita airport in Chiba Prefecture on Friday night, airport officials said Saturday.

The wing part, made of metal and plastic components, is 4.4 meters long and 60 centimeters wide. The Boeing 747-8 plane, from Shanghai, China, landed at Narita just after 9 p.m. on Friday, after which an inspection of the plane discovered the wing part was missing, Fuji TV reported. The runway was closed until 10:30 p.m. to check for possible damage but nothing was found. 

It was thought the part had broken off the plane in mid-flight, but on Saturday morning, the missing part was found in grass beside the runway, airport officials said.

© Japan Today

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Cheaply made plane

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

Boeing again.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Why not just come out and say "winglet" (those dimensions and weight, plus the 'thought to have come off midflight' eliminates everything else I can think of).

PS, the vertical tip on the end of wings that is now ubiquitous doesn't affect the flight characteristics of the wing in any way the pilot would feel, it just results in reduced fuel consumption, and in most planes is an aftermarket retrofit, not part of the original plane.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Bits falling off planes is more prevalent than we think. Happens all the time, fortunately the majority don't cause an accident

5 ( +6 / -1 )

TFOA. Having worked in the aviation industry for nearly 20 years, I can assure you that Things Fall Off Aircraft more often than you may think. More typically, they are blade-type antennae that shear due to aerodynamic stresses. And winglets such as this likewise shear off due to material fatigue (happens quite rapidly).

Flight surfaces are a different matter, as they actually affect flight characteristics.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Apparently one of the canoe shaped fairings under the wings that cover the flap track mechanism fell off. The Airbus A380 was subject to an airworthiness directive due to these flap track fairings falling off, so this happens across all manufacturers. But something weighing 60 kgs coming down over a populated area could be deadly.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

John Noun

Cheaply made plane

Nnnnope. The 747 is one of the sturdiest aircraft ever made. However, they are getting on there in years.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Sounds kind of like a part of the leading edge flap to me

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NCA operates a very young fleet of B747-8F.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Good thing they found the missing part, now it can be cheaply fixed. If they would have had to order a new replacement, it would cost more and with the supply chain issues, it could be months before a spare part is available.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Bits falling off planes is more prevalent than we think. Happens all the time, fortunately the majority don't cause an accident

Fortunately too it isnt reported on all that often either. It's bad enough when it is reported, imagine if it were a daily thing, no one would fly!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great knowledge of the aviation market there @John Noun. Can you even say how many engines this plane has?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Boeing just can’t win thesedays can they? Time to change the manufacturing site from China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Boeing planes have a history of bad maintenance. One of the worse airline crashes in history happened here in Japan and after the investigation finished, it was found that Boeing workers failed to properly weld a peace back together. To this day I dint think a single Boeing worker has been arrested or held accountable.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Boeing planes have a history of bad maintenance. One of the worse airline crashes in history happened here in Japan and after the investigation finished, it was found that Boeing workers failed to properly weld a peace back together. To this day I dint think a single Boeing worker has been arrested or held accountable.

Are you sure Boeing was performing the maintenance? That would be very unusual. Generally the airlines and air cargo carriers have their own shops and maintenance staff. For more extensive inspections the airlines send the aircraft out to companies that specialize in conducting major inspections.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Desert Tortoise

I said the investigation found Boeing at fault. They had sent some maintenance guys out to Japan to make a correction to the plane and didn’t weld it back properly. You can look it up.

“Japan's Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission(AAIC) concluded,[1]: 129  agreeing with investigators from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board,[2]that the rapid decompression was caused by a faulty repair by Boeing technicians after a tailstrike incident during a landing at Osaka Airport in 1978 as JAL Flight 115. The rear bulkhead of the plane had been repaired with an improperly installed doubler plate, compromising the plane's airworthiness. Cabin pressurization continued to expand and contract the improperly repaired bulkhead until the day of the accident, when the faulty repair failed, causing a rapid decompression that ripped off a large portion of the tail and caused the loss of hydraulic controls to the entire plane.”

Wikipedia

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Cheaply made plane

it’s not the plane, it’s the maintenance on the plane.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

it’s not the plane, it’s the maintenance on the plane.

I don’t get it. What’s the difference? That maintenance is very probably also done by Boeing staff or at least by Boeing employed, acknowledged or licensed foreign staff, if they really aren’t directly present in Shanghai, but my guess is that they are also there, at such an important and big airport.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Boeing is now a brand related with cheap low cost airlines who think a "brand" will fool their customers into thinking their cheaply made planes are safe.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

what a rubbish made in ...where...?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They checked for damage but nothing was found.

Only a 4 meter piece of airplane wing.

Gonna blame that on China too ?

Or blame the manufacturer ?

i assume their too incompetent to achieve the correct safety requirements before operating the aircraft

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites