Thai Airways A330 crash lands at Suvarnabhumi Bangkok

[regi]

strange strange strange

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/transpo ... r-problems

So if I read this, I understand that EASA warned TG about the possebility of cracks in that beam. TG followed the advice by inspecting the beams. And they found several faulty ones already and replaced them.
The airplane would have been delivered in 1995. That is +- 18 years young, right?
But EASA advises to replace it after 10 years.
And TG says that the beam was installed in 2004. And it was checked every 2 years.
2013 is not an even year So a check in 2012 and 2014 would have been on the program. Not 2013.

What has happened with that particular airplane between 1995 - 2004 - February 2013 and last week ?

And what does "usable condition" means ?

I am no specialist or journalist. I do not understand why peoples entitled to ask questions, do not ask the simple obvious questions where I immediately thought about.

[Desert Rat]

Hello Khun Regi,

Check these one out instead of the BP

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2011-0211

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2012-0015

Pdf file at the bottom of the page

[earthman]

I am no specialist or journalist.

Indeed those two are mutually exclusive.

Also note that the article says 'February last year' not 'this year', so indeed February 2012, not 2013.

What's more interesting is why the beam was replaced in 2004, after only 9 years, if it's supposed to have a life of 10 years? If it was necessary to replace it in 2004, after 9 years, then it is likely it would have been necessary to replace it this year already.

Also perhaps 'usable condition' is a poor/suboptimal translation from Thai? It just seems that it passed the last inspection in 2012.

Then again, if some part has known issues with not meeting expected lifetime, would it not be wise to increase inspection frequency when the part is nearing EOL? Or perhaps the inspection method is not sufficient to predict failure before the next inspection?

[teddybAIR]

And TG says that the beam was installed in 2004. And it was checked every 2 years.
2013 is not an even year So a check in 2012 and 2014 would have been on the program. Not 2013.

It is simply impossible to say anything intellligent without looking in the maintenance statements! You try to find suspicious things by literally applying words the guy said. Suppose they interoduced the bogie in 2004, inspected it in 2005 and then respected a 2 year cycle, that would perfectly solve your problem now, wouldn't it?

What's more interesting is why the beam was replaced in 2004, after only 9 years, if it's supposed to have a life of 10 years? If it was necessary to replace it in 2004, after 9 years, then it is likely it would have been necessary to replace it this year already.

Euhm, probably because wear is assessed at every 2year inspection and 2 different bogies will wear out at 2 very different rates instead of following the theoretical wear-out that is calculated when a part is introduced??? It is very likely that the wear/cracks on this bogie were within limits during the last inspection/ were undetected/... and that it propagated beyond fraction point in the months after that.

[regi]

I am no specialist or journalist.

Indeed those two are mutually exclusive.

Also note that the article says 'February last year' not 'this year', so indeed February 2012, not 2013.

Dreadful mistake, thank you for clarifying.

[Desert Rat]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/3 ... on-airport

[Lenoest]

The speculations on a possible non-respect of inspections interval due to the date in 2013 are irrelevant. Indeed only the maintenance records are valid source of info. Without being familiar to the Thai maintenance program, we can suspect that their C-check calendar interval is 20 months as per MPD. They would probably then align the beam inspection to these base maintenance inputs, not using the maximum interval of 24 months.

[regi]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/3 ... on-airport

I shall abstain from comment.