|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : ord|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : flight engineer|
pilot : atp
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 100|
flight time total : 15000
flight time type : 7300
|Function||other personnel other|
|Qualification||other other : other|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : critical|
other anomaly other
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
The left inboard flap track fairing cone had been damaged by a ground veh. Maintenance removed cone, inspected flap track, found no interior damage. We were told that MEL allowed us to go. After talking with company line maintenance and dispatch we agreed to accept aircraft and depart. Prior to pushback I requested mechanic observe flap operation from up to full flap and back up, just to be sure. During extension, nothing unusual observed. On retraction we felt a pronounced bump on the airframe. Mechanic advised a roller was catching on the aft lip of the flap track fairing remaining after the tail cone was removed. The airplane was taken OTS. During a flap 40 approach and go around the left trailing edge flap could have hung up as flaps were retracted to 15. This could have resulted in a split flap condition, during a high drag go around. Due to the wear marks on the side plate, which is a part of the tail cone, we believe the tail cone should not be removed and dispatched as was intended during this incident. We recommend dissemination of this incident to all flight crews to be alert not to accept deferrals but to check out all systems affected prior to departure. We were legally released to operate the flight only to find a potentially serious flight control problem after requesting an extra complete flap operation at our insistence. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated he has followed and found the design is just on the late model of this medium large transport. The roller referred to is a side motion roller designed to take care of any side motion of the flaps. The side plate attached to the tail cone is for a guide of this roller to prevent just what happened. The reporter's company has fixed the problem by attaching a side plate to the forward portion of the fairing when the tail cone and normal side plate are removed. The pilots union has been given the information, but he did not know if it has been communicated to the FAA or the mfr. As a side item, he reported that his company has just made a policy decision not to have cross flying between the early medium large transport and the advanced technology medium large transport.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR MLG WITH TAIL CONE OF CANOE FAIRING ON FLAP TRACK REMOVED PER MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST REQUIREMENT HAD INTERFERENCE WITH FLAP ROLLER STRIKING FAIRING WHEN FLAPS RETRACTED FROM FULLY EXTENDED POSITION.
Narrative: THE LEFT INBOARD FLAP TRACK FAIRING CONE HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY A GND VEH. MAINT REMOVED CONE, INSPECTED FLAP TRACK, FOUND NO INTERIOR DAMAGE. WE WERE TOLD THAT MEL ALLOWED US TO GO. AFTER TALKING WITH COMPANY LINE MAINT AND DISPATCH WE AGREED TO ACCEPT ACFT AND DEPART. PRIOR TO PUSHBACK I REQUESTED MECH OBSERVE FLAP OP FROM UP TO FULL FLAP AND BACK UP, JUST TO BE SURE. DURING EXTENSION, NOTHING UNUSUAL OBSERVED. ON RETRACTION WE FELT A PRONOUNCED BUMP ON THE AIRFRAME. MECHANIC ADVISED A ROLLER WAS CATCHING ON THE AFT LIP OF THE FLAP TRACK FAIRING REMAINING AFTER THE TAIL CONE WAS REMOVED. THE AIRPLANE WAS TAKEN OTS. DURING A FLAP 40 APCH AND GO AROUND THE LEFT TRAILING EDGE FLAP COULD HAVE HUNG UP AS FLAPS WERE RETRACTED TO 15. THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A SPLIT FLAP CONDITION, DURING A HIGH DRAG GO AROUND. DUE TO THE WEAR MARKS ON THE SIDE PLATE, WHICH IS A PART OF THE TAIL CONE, WE BELIEVE THE TAIL CONE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED AND DISPATCHED AS WAS INTENDED DURING THIS INCIDENT. WE RECOMMEND DISSEMINATION OF THIS INCIDENT TO ALL FLT CREWS TO BE ALERT NOT TO ACCEPT DEFERRALS BUT TO CHK OUT ALL SYSTEMS AFFECTED PRIOR TO DEP. WE WERE LEGALLY RELEASED TO OPERATE THE FLT ONLY TO FIND A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS FLT CTL PROB AFTER REQUESTING AN EXTRA COMPLETE FLAP OP AT OUR INSISTENCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED HE HAS FOLLOWED AND FOUND THE DESIGN IS JUST ON THE LATE MODEL OF THIS MLG. THE ROLLER REFERRED TO IS A SIDE MOTION ROLLER DESIGNED TO TAKE CARE OF ANY SIDE MOTION OF THE FLAPS. THE SIDE PLATE ATTACHED TO THE TAIL CONE IS FOR A GUIDE OF THIS ROLLER TO PREVENT JUST WHAT HAPPENED. THE RPTR'S COMPANY HAS FIXED THE PROB BY ATTACHING A SIDE PLATE TO THE FORWARD PORTION OF THE FAIRING WHEN THE TAIL CONE AND NORMAL SIDE PLATE ARE REMOVED. THE PLTS UNION HAS BEEN GIVEN THE INFO, BUT HE DID NOT KNOW IF IT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA OR THE MFR. AS A SIDE ITEM, HE RPTED THAT HIS COMPANY HAS JUST MADE A POLICY DECISION NOT TO HAVE CROSS FLYING BTWN THE EARLY MLG AND THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MLG.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.