Tailstrike EK 345 to return to service

[Y. J. Foo 0]

The notorious EK A340-500 which had a tailstrike back at MEL at March was once considered to be damaged serious enough to be written off. However, it appears, according to this thread at A.net, it is going to be back in action after some major repairs.

[MIR 2]

Received this from the flight dispatcher of A6-ERG (ferry flight from Melbourne to Toulouse)

Dear Mir,

You can't imagine how happy i am to find such a pictures on JetPhotos ! I was the airbus flight dispatcher on the flight. As you said we land in dubai the same day then spent two nights, then fly to Toulouse at the end.

The aircraft is now in a shelter, with tail, horizontal tail plan and all the rear section on the ground. They will completly change the 16-19 section of the aircraft. A long 3 month working party.

Edited August 3, 2009 by MIR

[S V Choong 4]

As long as they are properly repaired. It should be fine.

[Nik H. 3]

Tailstrike repaired aircraft has a way of haunting flght safety years later....sometimes to devastating effect. The JAL B747 and the China Airlines B747 comes to mind.

[flee 5]

Well Airbus does have the benefit of hindsight from those air crash investigations. Furthermore, with modern diagnostic and repair techniques, I think that the rebuilding of the tail section should be up to their normal standards. Time will tell...

[Yusoff 1]

The remarks from the Jetphotospic:

 

The ferry flight is unpressurized and it is fitted with portable toilets onboard.

 

This means that it flew low (at what FL? 10?)? Why can't use it's own lavs?

[S V Choong 4]

Tailstrike repaired aircraft has a way of haunting flght safety years later....sometimes to devastating effect. The JAL B747 and the China Airlines B747 comes to mind.

IIRC, air crashed investigation showed that the JAL B742 & CI B742 were not repaired properly. They were not repaired to Boeing's repairing standards and the work was not carried out by the manufacturer.

 

Sounds like the A345 is going to a new rear section which are being replaced by the manufacturer, which should be much safer. My 2 cents.

[MIR 2]

The remarks from the Jetphotospic:

 

 

 

This means that it flew low (at what FL? 10?)? Why can't use it's own lavs?

 

I understand that they stripped out the interior to reduce weight (no lavs on board), cruise altitude 10,000ft(unpressurised).