Air NZ: 2nd incident losing parts in flight

[Wirraway]

from Airlinersnet:

First news report

Wing Flap Parts Fall From Air NZ Plane
31/08/2002 06:17 PM
IRN

For the second time in a week, bits of an Air New Zealand 747 have fallen on Manukau. In the latest incident, wing flap parts dropped off a plane bound for Los Angeles last night.

The problem didn't become obvious until the plane came to land, when the flaps wouldn't extend properly. A safe landing was eventually made, and engineers on the ground found damage to the plane's wing and tail.

A fisherman found the parts floating in the Manukau Harbour.
Last weekend a wing part fell from an Air New Zealand 747 bound for Japan into a Mangere carpark.

Civil aviation and Air New Zealand will conduct a full investigation into the incident.

[Piz Buin]

Still skimping on the fastners...the NZ government using spares ex NZRAF...bring on the QF investment ;)

[cribble]

:D
Want to have a part of Air NZ? Get a boat and park it in the Manukau harbour.

[18-Wheeler]

If this keeps up, then the locals in Mangere are going to be able to build there own 747 out of spare parts ... :D

[CI300]

wouldnt happen to an A340 ;)

[Boeing Belly]

The wheels will fall off next........oh, sorry, my mistake....they've already fallen off the entire airline!!

[TIMMEEEE]

Sounds a little like a former kiwi owned airline in Oz some 12 months ago that kept having certain aircraft in their fleet suspended for lack of maintenance.

Couple that with an article in the SMH last week whereby someone in Air NZ admitted that the airline will continue to struggle in its present form and will continue to be marginalised with few real opportunities for capital raising and it sounds like the wheels may be next as mentioned by BB.

[koru]

Wheels still on your airline, Boeing Belly? :confused:

[fruitloop]

Timmeeee

Stay tuned for future 'stats'about your prediction !!:D :D

Cheers

[Boeing Belly]

The one I'm with now, yes. My last one, no. You guys did to it what you usually reserve for your sheep!

[Wirraway]

nzzoom.com


Govt asks questions of Air NZ

There has been a top level directive issued to investigators looking into Air New Zealand's latest mishap.

The government says it wants to hear from aviation accident specialists and Air NZ investigators who are investigating how a wing flap dislodged from a 747-400 during take-off from Auckland Airport.

The pilot of flight NZ-2, with more than 300 passengers on board, only discovered there was a problem when landing at Los Angeles airport. The plane was then grounded at Los Angeles.

The six-metre-long wing flap had dislodged and damaged other parts of the wing and tail during take-off.

Wing flaps allow an aircraft to elevate easily during take-off. Aviation experts told ONE News the pilot would have had no reason to detect a problem until landing at Los Angeles.

It is the second case of an Air NZ plane losing parts while in flight in less than a week.

Earlier, a panel from another 747-400 wing fell off shortly after take-off, landing in an Auckland industrial estate just metres from parked cars.

Air NZ engineers have been conducting a full inspection of the entire 747 fleet. Visual checks of all seven aircraft are complete and the airline says nothing untoward has been found.

The Engineers' Union is standing by Air NZ's good reputation.

"Air NZ engineering has an impecable reputation for the work they do and the standrads they meet...

"So to have these incidents happening is a real concern to that workforce and they are very keen to see an investigation to establish what the causes are," says Andrew Little of the Engineers' Union.

While many who were on board the flight are questioning how it could have happened, one kiwi who has now arrived in London says there was little fuss.

"Everything seemed quite normal until we got to LA.

"We were on our final approach... When the plane just suddenly accelerated and they aborted the approach," says flight NZ-2 passanger David Keys.

Investigators are expected to brief the government on Monday, September 2.

Published on Sep 01, 2002

[Girt_bar]

Boeing Belly

"You guys did to it what you usually reserve for your sheep!"

Unless Koru was on the board of Air NZ how did he screw your airline. As has been said on numerous occasions, WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER DECISIONS MADE AT BOARD LEVEL!!!! (has it sunk in yet BB?????)

Now go back and enjoy the Roast lamb that I worked so hard at preparing for you :D :D :D :

[Capt Claret]

If Wing flaps allow an aircraft to elevate easily during take-off. why was the silly pilot trying to use them to land?:rolleyes:

I know this sort of thing's been covered before, but, why can't the press try to get it right?

[AN LAME]

Would have been a pilot who did the transit inspection. Look what we have to look forward to fellas ( and ladies)

[reynoldsno1]

"Air NZ engineering has an impecable reputation for the work they do and the standrads they meet...

Thowe this dusn't nessersarily eggstend to there speling

[cribble]

:eek:
Lame
You could count on the fingers of a West Coast axeman's hand the number of transit checks made and signed off by Air NZ wide-body tech crews. It just doesn't happen sport.

[AN LAME]

Take your word cribble.

So you're saying all Transit Inspections are carried out by Licenced Engineers in Enzed?

[ZK-NSJ]

heard on the radio, that boeing are saying it might have been a production fault

[Boeing Belly]

How old are the aircraft in question?

[ZK-NSJ]

this latest one is 13 , which is not increadibly old by airliner standards, and by the way bb,we may be loosing flaps and panels and whatever but at least we arnt loosing our marbles unlike your self righteous stuck up self.

[Boeing Belly]

Hey sheepboy, if it's a production problem why aren't they falling off decent airlines' 747s. BTW, is that "losing" or "loosing". I see the education system in NZ is of the same standard as the rest of the country.:D Maybe someone "LOOSENED" the bolts holding them on. Or were they "LOSED"

[AN LAME]

Now now fellas. Play the ball not the man

[ZK-NSJ]

i only said i heard it could be a production problem, i never said it WAS, decent airlines employ decent people, so that generally means the one u work for isnt, oh and u might want to start getting worried your socalled decent airline is gettin upwards of half its 747 fleet serviced and fitted with ptvs over here, so maybe u might expect bits so start falling off, then again we dont have golfcourse at the end our our runways to crash into,
and as i recall in one of your earlier posts in the year, u tryed to pin the apia ils problem on air nz, when it is actually an airport problem, the air nz pilots noticed it (like all good pilots would) and landed safely,and btw as for the education thing, nz has a highly regarded education system, i happened to go to the same highschool as lord ernest rutherford, and the secutary of the commenwealth don mckinnon, and the standard of the teaching was very high.

[Boeing Belly]

I think the 747s will be safe...... as long as they stay North of the Southern tip of NZ. Shall we call a truce? Woomera- he mentioned the "C" word first!!

[airbrake42]

ZK-NSJ
I wouldn't start comparing ANZ record if I were you unless you have a very very short memory!

[ZK-NSJ]

and wot record might that be, every airline has its faults, some more than others, it just seams in the world of dunnunder aviation, whoever does have faults gets hammered in the media, these things happen everyday right around the world, but u dont hear about each and every one, i would fly with air nz anyday of the week, just as i would fly with qantas as well, compared with other airlines around the world our two have a pretty decent safety record, and i hardly see how a couple of bits falling off will change that.
and bb what do u mean by the jets staying north of the southern tip of nz???

[Boeing Belly]

ZK, I've got you pegged now. You're 17 years old with a student licence, studying hard for a private licence because one day you want to fly "big jets". Am I right? Why don't we just let this one go? No hard feelings.:)

[Kermit 180]

Reckon this thread has moments to live.... and rightly so too.

Kerms

[Proceed As Cleared]

Boeing Belly,

You're once more the culprit screwing (moderator substituted word) up a thread.

Get lost!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[ZK-NSJ]

bb firstly i am not 17 , i am 21 secondly i do not have any ambition to fly planes, i work in a totally unrelated industry, and have a casual interest in aviation, and to follow on from what i heard on the radio a boeing spokesperson has announced that the same problem has affected 7 other operators since 1996, and they are considering issueing a safety notice,so there ........

[koru]

Well done Boeing Belly. Correcting ZK-NSJ's poor grammar was spot on, by the way, when you address someone as "sheepboy" it is in fact being used as a proper noun, so the first letter should be a capital, as in "Sheepboy"

Keep up the good work and congratulations also on introducing the first sheep joke to the thread. After all, once the bigotted ranting and raving dies down, there's nothing like a good old-fashioned bestiality related insult to earn the respect of one and all.

And while my keyboard is warmed up... cribble you are correct. Although they do walk-rounds, ANZ crew don't normally sign off transit checks, this is done my a licensed engineer at each port, however this fact is irrelevant. The photos I have seen show one of the inner slotted flaps broken on the 747, so I doubt anyone would see it unless the flaps were lowered.

As far as slagging off other airlines maintenance, let he who has not had a f**k-up cast the first stone....

[Boeing Belly]

Thanks Koru, I wont make that mistake again.

[aviator_38]

Hi folks,

These two reports were in the NZ Herald. Looks very much like human error.

Cheers


=============================

Jumbo panel missing 116 screws
04.09.2002
By MATHEW DEARNALEY

Investigators are believed to be trying to find how an Air New Zealand Boeing 747 was allowed to fly with just four screws in a wing panel that needed about 120.

The screws failed soon after the huge jet took off for Japan on Saturday, August 24, and the 10kg "non-structural" part plummeted into a Manukau carpark.

Air New Zealand will not discuss an investigation it is conducting under Civil Aviation Authority supervision, but an industry source said yesterday that there should have been a Machine screw in each of about 120 holes around the panel, which measured 130cm by 80cm.

It is understood from several sources that the four screws were inserted purely as a temporary measure, pending more work on the part.

But a communication mix-up meant the plane was cleared for takeoff, possibly after the intended work was done - but on the wrong panel.

"Whoever was working on it thought there was more work to be done and just put in four screws to hold it in place in case it rained or to keep bird droppings out," said one insider.

The aircraft concerned had been out of service at Air New Zealand's world-class Auckland maintenance base for several weeks, or possibly even months, because of the downturn in air travel.

Work was done on it sporadically by many different people, who wheeled it in and out of hangars to fit it around more pressing maintenance on other aircraft.

Air New Zealand spokesman Mark Champion said it was far too early to speculate on the causes of a mishap that might take several more weeks of investigations.

Neither would the Civil Aviation Authority discuss the investigation.

But its director, Captain John Jones, said on Monday that he was confident of Air New Zealand's safety performance and of the systems in place at the airline, which is renowned for its engineering excellence.

He was commenting then after the loss of another part from an Air New Zealand 747 on Friday night, when a 2m piece of wing flap fell into the Manukau Harbour.

The Transport Accident Investigation Commission has only just started its inquiry into that event but it might have been a manufacturing fault because Boeing says several 747s have lost similar parts.

The Seattle-based aircraft manufacturer said at first that it had not heard of similar instances but changed its tune late yesterday after checking its databases more thoroughly.

Regional communications director Ken Morton said from Sydney that several operators had reported similar separations of inboard "fore-flaps", those closest to the main wing structure and also to the aircraft fuselage.

But Mr Morton said it was too early to suggest a link to the Air New Zealand flap loss.

The airline said last night that engineers in Los Angeles had found a broken fastening lug on the detached flap assembly, a discovery which hastened more intensive tests on its other seven jumbos.

Three were cleared through inspections yesterday, and Air New Zealand expects to finish testing the rest by noon today.
Boeing 747s have two sets of three flaps on each wing, which are rolled out to increase lift on takeoff and to slow aircraft for landings.

The Los Angeles-bound 747 is 13 years old, making it the oldest of Air New Zealand's fleet, but Mr Morton said the airline's long-haul operations meant the flaps had far less than average wear. Pilots could land without flaps if necessary, although at speeds higher than desirable.

Air New Zealand also confirmed yesterday that a Boeing 767 flight was delayed from leaving Auckland for Rarotonga on August 5 while a cockpit light was replaced, but for only 144 minutes, not the three hours complained of by a Herald reader.

Mr Champion denied that this and an incident reported in the paper yesterday, in which a faulty hydraulic pump delayed a 767 from leaving Rarotonga for Auckland on August 9 for 24 hours, indicated any worrying trend.

He said delaying flights to replace such parts demonstrated the airline's commitment to high safety standards.
=====
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2397089&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

Wing panel on Air NZ plane marked unfit for flight
05.09.2002
By STAFF REPORTERS

Air New Zealand admitted yesterday that a wing panel that fell off in flight had been marked for repair and the jet should not have been cleared to fly.

The panel, which was never properly screwed on to the wing of the Boeing 747, had a cross marked on it with red tape, indicating that it was undergoing engineering work.

The cross was visible when the panel was first photographed after its recovery, but the tape had been removed when the panel was shown to journalists a few hours later.

The airline was last night investigating how the aircraft came to be put back in service with the "work-in-progress" markings clearly onit.

The panel fell from the Boeing 747-400 on August 24 and crashed into a Manukau carpark. Last Friday a second panel fell from another aircraft into the Manukau Harbour.

The Herald revealed yesterday that the panel lost on August 24 had been attached to the wing by just four screws instead of the 125 needed.

Air New Zealand has now confirmed that most of the screws were missing, and that the wing panel was tagged with red tape "indicating that engineering work was in progress on it".

"There were signs of pull-through tearing at each corner of the panel indicating that it had been held in place by only four screws instead of the usual 125 fastening screws," the company said.
Spokesman David Beatson said Air New Zealand was aware the panel had been photographed with the cross and its removal was not an attempted cover-up.

"It would have been a foolish thing to do."

He said the investigation would address the issue and if any attempt at a cover-up had been made, it would be discovered.
After a 2m section of panel fell from the wing flap of another Air New Zealand Boeing 747 last Friday, an inspection found a broken bracket fastening.

Yesterday Air New Zealand said inspections of all its Boeings had revealed signs of corrosion staining on the same type of fastening on yet another plane.

The aircraft had remained on the ground and the part was replaced as a precaution.

Air New Zealand's acting chief executive, Andrew Miller, said last night that the red tape was not noticed because it was on the top of the wing and aircraft were checked from the ground before takeoff.

"The panel was on the upper surface of the wings and it wasn't noticeable from the ground.

"Things on top of the wings are checked. It's currently subject to an investigation. Engineering's a very technical area."

Air New Zealand's senior vice-president, operations and technical, Bill Jacobson, said the incident "requires us not only to check the manner in which work was carried out and checked out on this particular aircraft, but also the basic operating procedures and instructions for carrying out this kind of work.

"We need to determine with as much certainty as we can if the detachment resulted from human error, a process flaw or a combination of both.

"We must determine the causes of the detachment beyond reasonable doubt."

Air New Zealand had to satisfy the Civil Aviation Authority that its personnel and procedures complied with accepted safety standards, he said.

Air New Zealand yesterday used a helicopter to scour the Manukau Harbour for aircraft parts after Friday's incident.
Fishermen found the wing-flap section on Saturday morning, but no other parts were found in the airline's searches this week.
Air New Zealand spokeswoman Shannon Huse said the searches had followed the Los Angeles-bound aircraft's flightpath on the harbour and to Manukau Heads. More searches might be carried out.

Mr Miller confirmed that the aircraft which lost the panel over the harbour showed signs of corrosive staining on the broken part.
But Air New Zealand said it was too soon to say if the broken bracket was the cause of the "detachment incident".

The Transport Accident Investigation Commission has widened its investigation to include the latest revelations.

Inspector Ken Matthews said the commission would contact Boeing to see if the aircraft manufacturer was aware of any other cases involving the component.

He was still waiting for the broken bracket fastening from the aircraft in Los Angeles to be returned to New Zealand for inspection.

He said the investigation would also examine Air New Zealand's maintenance procedures.

* Air New Zealand's chief executive, Ralph Norris, is overseas on leave

[Albatross]

The NZ Herald has happily got hold of the fact that the Director of NZ CAA goes to great lengths to say that in spite of parts falling off Air NZ aircraft on a regular basis the airline has sound main procedures. Unfortunately, the Herald points out, same director was working for most of his career with Air NZ previous to his current job and was recommended to CAA by Air NZ itself. Dodgy. If you think of Air NZ as a First world airline then current events aren't too acceptable but I suppose if you see it as another struggling South Pacific airline like Air Nuiguini or Air Naru then it's just another day at the office :D

Air NZ lapse forces extra checks

06.09.2002
By MATHEW DEARNALEY and PAULA OLIVER
The head of the Civil Aviation Authority said last night that Air New Zealand accepted checks on extended aircraft maintenance programmes were not as "robust" as they could have been.

But Captain John Jones, the agency's director, assured the travelling public - and those on the ground - that additional inspection procedures had already been put in place since an Air New Zealand Boeing 747 took off to Japan with 121 screws missing.

Aircraft would not now be cleared for takeoff until engineers independent of those who had done maintenance work made visual inspections of all panels.

Although a 10kg wing panel fell off the Japan-bound jumbo and into a Manukau carpark on August 24, it was not until after a disclosure by the Herald this Wednesday that Air New Zealand confirmed the piece was pinned to the aircraft by just four screws.

Captain Jones accepted that he had expressed confidence in the airline safety systems before this was made public, but said it was in the knowledge that steps had been taken to prevent a recurrence. He said the aircraft in question had undergone "non-normal" maintenance over several weeks, being towed in and out of hangars as other more urgent work permitted, and a large red cross indicating work still in progress was not noticed as it was on top of a wing.

Transport Minister Paul Swain also expressed confidence that such a "human error" would not happen again, and he said he had no intention of swapping his own booking to fly with Air New Zealand next week for a seat on Qantas.

He also defended the CAA's audit procedures, and its independence, after questions in Parliament about how the aircraft could have been cleared for takeoff. He said an agency inspector rushed immediately to where the panel was found and quickly established that a one-off human error was the cause.

Captain Jones was operations manager for Air New Zealand subsidiary Mt Cook Airlines before joining the CAA last year but Mr Swain said he had full confidence in his integrity and independence.

He also noted that the CAA was audited within the past two years by representatives of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Captain Jones told the Herald he was absolutely clear about which organisation he worked for - the CAA.

"I'm not working for Air New Zealand or Mt Cook. My job now is quite different," he said.

Not only did the CAA audit Air New Zealand's engineering section 16 times a year, but that operation was checked rigorously by regulatory agencies from the countries of all airlines that used its maintenance facilities.

Air New Zealand spokesman Mark Champion refused yesterday to discuss any of the airline's maintenance procedures, given that they were under a CAA-supervised investigation.

He denied that the airline was in the throes of any crisis, or that there was any need for chief executive Ralph Norris to curtail an overseas holiday, after a second incident last Friday in which part of a wing flap fell into the Manukau Harbour from another Boeing 747. He understood Mr Norris would be overseas for about another fortnight.

And then this turned up. I would have thought saying that aurcraft is perfectly safe but then flying it back empty may not be the smartest move. Nor is the apparent lack of answers from NZ CAA about anything to do with Air NZ and the 58 safety alerts the CAA has issued in the past 3 months. Understandibly, the papers are calling it a cover up. Nor is having a CEO who stays away on holiday while passenger confidence plummets.

Air New Zealand 747 flying home empty

06.09.2002
11.45am
An Air New Zealand jumbo jet which lost part of a wing flap over Auckland last week will be flown back to Auckland this weekend, without passengers, to undergo maintenance.

Air New Zealand said today while it was "unusual" for its 747 to return from Los Angeles to Auckland without passengers, the aircraft was perfectly safe to fly.

"It requires further maintenance and is going to go into the shop straight away but that was planned maintenance unrelated to the incident," said Air New Zealand spokesman Mark Champion.

The aircraft lost parts of its wing flap moments after it took off from Auckland last Friday.

The flight crew felt a slight bump but put it down to turbulence and discovered the problem only when the captain tried to lower the wing flaps to land at Los Angeles.

The missing flap which fell onto the mudflats of the Manukau Harbour next to the Auckland International Airport, is extended to slow the plane on its final landing approach and it landed faster than normal.

Mr Champion said the airline made the decision to bring the aircraft back without passengers after the flap incident.

"There is an element of public confidence in that as well."

The airline said when the 747 was taken out of service in Los Angeles for repairs the fleet was "jiggled around" to cover all the flights because it was not known when the aircraft would be returned to service.

The airline said because of the rescheduling of the fleet which the wing flap incident caused, one aircraft would have had to return from Los Angeles without passengers.

Mr Champion said reports that 58 safety alerts involving big passenger aircraft had been hushed up did not apply to Air New Zealand.

Today's Dominion Post newspaper reported the incidents around New Zealand occurred in the three months to June and that the Civil Aviation Authority had refused to identify the incidents, the aircraft or the airlines involved.

However, Mr Champion said his airline adhered to its statutory obligations to report all incidents. There had been four recently, including a wing part which fell through the roof of a south Auckland warehouse in May last year, a panel which fell on to a Canterbury farm in May this year and a panel which fell into a Manukau carpark on August 24.

"That lot covers all of them. I am not aware of any others."

However, he said he may not have been aware of all incidents because they had no operational impact, although there may have been a regulatory obligation for them to be reported.

Mr Champion said the airline had instigated additional checks after the wing flap and wing panel incident, including a visual check from the cockpit of wing panels.

The panel which fell off on August 24 was held in place by only four screws instead of the usual 125.

Because the panel had not been properly secured to the aircraft a crossed red tape was put on the panel to indicate "work in progress".

The red tape on the upper wing surface was not seen during an inspection and the aircraft was given its final clearance documentation to fly.

The failure of staff to see the tape was part of the inquiry, the airline said.

"We have put in extra checks and double checks," Mr Champion said.

He said those additional checks included checks from the cabin and the wing top.

He said the wing flap assembly had also had additional, non-destruct tests, over and above those required by regulatory authorities.

Mr Champion said the incidents had not affected the airline's relationship with other airlines and operators, including the United States defence department.

He said Air New Zealand had maintenance contracts for many aircraft.

"We are FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) accredited in terms of third party work which means we are getting US defence work."

He said Air New Zealand also had contracts with the US Coastguard, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, Qantas, Air Pacific, and Virgin Airlines.

"They have comfort and confidence," Mr Champion said.

[AN LAME]

I hear QF are not overly happy with some of the outsourced maintenance that has been coming back with questionable reliability and has been found lacking in appropriate maintenance procedures and inspections.

[ZK-NSJ]

if ya live in a glasshouse don't throw stones,

as i recall ansett maintenance wasnt exactly spot on either
and as for qantas, well they have had thier share of problems when it comes to skimping on maintenance, if qantas wern't that happy with it they would have pulled the plug....

[AN LAME]

Keep your hair on ZK for crying out loud. I'm not attacking the f****** NZ populace! It's what I have heard on good authority from non AN people. And as for QF pulling the plug...it's amazing what a cheap price will do for your perspective.

[ZK-NSJ]

i got no hair to keep on :D :D

[CI300]

having seen what an were sending anz to 'fix' ...... Im not even going to bother. were flooging a dead horse.
But whilst were here, is there any truth to the rumour that FJ are being donated a 744 by QF.... Bangkok Betty herself. Whats the PDA like on that piece of tin?

[AN LAME]

Yeah right CI300. That's why RMCs despatch reliability went up about 30% after AN had it for six months.
And how do you explain the ex British Midlands 737 that went through ANZ for a C check and arrived in Australia with the ILS and VOR receivers cross connected. And why when AN (or QF for that matter) LAMEs supervise the check being carried out, the manager at the place threatens to kick them out if they don't 'lose that torch'
Quote me some examples or pull your head in.

[Eurocap]

Have you guys who are taking the mickey out of ANZ got short memories. It wasn't too long ago when Qantas and Ansett were having their maintenance problems. As per usual these occurrances highlight possible deficiencies wich are then corrected and then the frequency of these problems goes away.
All airlines have them. Some are more high profile than others. The end result is that they are fixed and thank goodness for that.:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Terbine]

Just heard on BBC an Air NZ 747 on LAX-LHR run had to shutdown in flight #3 , due to "popping and banging" noises...Dumped fuel and returning to LAX. According to BBC this is the same machine that started this thread...........oooops??:eek:

[Wirraway]

Air NZ Shares Stutter On Engine Failure
[email protected]

1114 [Dow Jones] Air NZ defends safety record but shares losing more altitude, down 3.9% in NZ, 4.4% in Sydney; renewed spotlight on safety adds to pressure from oil price rise, threat of war. Spokesman Mark Champion says there will be investigation into what caused engine to overheat after Air NZ 747-400 forced to return to London Heathrow early this morning.; transport safety regulators also likely involved. Though plane is same one that lost section of wing flap on takeoff from Auckland in late August, Champion stresses 2 incidents aren't technically related. (WES)

[Albatross]

Best quote is "the airline has an excellent safety record, excluding the Erebus disaster" I am sure most airlines have an excellent safety record when you exclude hull losses.

Jinx dogs Air NZ jet
26 September 2002

An Air New Zealand jumbo jet forced to land in London after an engine failed not only lost a flap last month but also suffered major engine trouble last year.

The Los Angeles-bound Boeing 747-400 which flew back to Heathrow Airport 90 minutes after take-off yesterday was the same plane that lost 2m of wing flap while taking off from Auckland on August 30.

Last year, the same jumbo was forced to land in Fiji with engine trouble.

The problems with the jinxed jet were revealed as the airline admitted yesterday it is concerned passengers will start to question its safety record.

In the latest incident, the Los Angeles-bound 747 was forced to dump fuel and return to London after the crew heard a series of loud bangs in its number three engine at about 30,000 feet.

The engine was shut down and the aircraft, with 358 passengers aboard, landed safely with three engines operating.

Chief executive Ralph Norris defended the airline's safety record yesterday, saying he was satisfied there was no systemic problem with the airline's engineering systems.

"I am very concerned about the fact that passengers will think we have safety problems. Unfortunately it's like the old adage – things come in threes."

He said the experience was likely to have been stressful for passengers and the airline would be carrying out a full investigation into what went wrong.

"Engine shutdowns of the kind we saw this morning aren't everyday events – but they aren't rarities either.

"We will tell you what went wrong – and what we're doing about it – when we've gathered and assessed the evidence ..." he said.

Air NZ's record came under scrutiny after a large inspection panel fell from a Japan-bound Boeing 747 on August 24. The airline later admitted staff had failed to check that the panel had been screwed back on properly after maintenance.

The investigation into why a large section of flap failed on a jumbo bound for Los Angeles on August 30 is continuing.

The aircraft involved in the latest incident – ZK-NBS – was built in 1989 and is the oldest aircraft in Air New Zealand's eight-strong fleet of Boeing 747s. The airline said the flap and the engine incidents were completely unrelated and pointed out the engine was about half way through its 10,000-hour life cycle.

Air NZ has 15 Rolls-Royce RB 211 engines _ the type involved in the London shutdown _ and has a failure rate running at one-sixth of the international average. Its last engine failure was in 1996, the airline said.

The airline is also checking all the fuel pumps on its jumbo fleet after Boeing warned they may have a manufacturing fault that could ignite fuel. The fuel pump warning is Boeing's biggest parts problem in about 17 years, with 35,000 fuel pumps on more than 3200 aircraft worldwide needing inspection.

But Air NZ said the engine failure was also unrelated to the fuel tank problem. It is believed the investigation may focus on whether an engine blade failed. The investigation is likely to take six weeks.

Aviation specialist Les Bloxham said Air New Zealand's safety credibility had suffered another blow.

"If this turns out to be another maintenance problem, it will have major implications for the airline," he said.

Travel agents were standing behind the airline last night.

Greg Bridgman, spokesman for business travel specialist BTI New Zealand, said there had been no cancellations out of safety concerns.

He said the airline had a great safety record – excluding the Erebus disaster – but the three incidents came at an unfortunate time. "Of course it's a setback for the airline. It's like Air New Zealand's come out of intensive care and now they've got another infection. With good management, they will hopefully get back on track."

Tony Moffatt, commercial director at House of Travel, also reported no cancellations sparked by safety concerns.

The Civil Aviation Authority has appointed an investigator to look into the engine failure. Air NZ said it would also be talking to engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce about what went wrong.

Air NZ has leased a spare engine from British Airways and the troubled plane will return to Auckland today

[Mungo]

Just a question that arises from Albatross's post, actually it's something that has irked me for some considerable time.....

Who the hell is Les Bloxam, "aviation expert", "aviation specialist", "aviation commentator" etc. etc.

Does he, or has he ever had anything to do with aviation (even a tenuous connmection might do) or is just yet another wally who crawls out from where ever at the beck and call of the media to pontificate on a subject that he has so far shown to have very little understanding of?

I guess it gives the media an out because they can say that they only printed what their "expert" said.

I note with interest that the NZ Herald's business editor Fran O'sullivan is also an expert in matters relating to aircraft engineering and airline operations.

A word of advice to Herald readers: If Fran's business expertise is on the same level as her aviation expertise, don't pay any attention to any hot investment tips she might let slip, that shirt you're very fond of may not be on your back for very long!!!!

Anyway, must away to work, it's a risky business ('cos Fran says so, and so does Les), but someone has to do it.

[Mike773]

Mungo...you are 100% correct about the Herald reports. Les Bloxham is just another fool they run to because they think he knows something.

According to Les, flaps slow an aircraft down, and the Boeing directive to check centre fuel-tank pumps has something to do with the No3 engine shutdown on an NZ 744 out of LHR the other day.

Another one they pull out of the woodwork (on TV too) is Ewan Wilson of Kiwi Air fame. Now I'd love to know what he's supposed to be an expert in! He's still smarting because ANZ dared to compete with him.

ANZ's biggest problem at the moment is with the public perception. This is fuelled by the media who love to beat up a story. The fact that it was the same a/c (ZK-NBS) that had an engine shutdown at LHR that lost the starboard fore-flap has the media drooling.

Even the idiot gnome Paul Holmes last night (who has a PPL so should know better!) took delight saying to the ANZ CEO last night on TV that he'd see him back in a couple of weeks for the next incident. Yeah, that really helps! The fact that engine shutdowns occur occasionally, and that that engine could well have been on a different a/c (but just happened do be on NBS) completely escaped him.

If the recent incidents had happened 3 months apart, there'd be no story!

So far the only icident of note was the panel on ZK-SUI that wasn't bolted down. I doubt the flap seperation or engine shutdown had anything to do with bad maintenance. But of course, until the reports are out it's hard to say.

I hate ANZ as much as the next guy, but boy I'm starting to feel sorry for them. And that goes against the grain! :p

[Airtart]

As I said once before, I think they are still using the same business plan as they had for Ansett. Go Air NZ!

[CI300]

So thats twice you made yourself sound ignorant airslag.

[Airtart]

Charming !

[ZK-NSJ]

do i hear a broken record playing here????
sounds like one of those cheap ones from the 5 dollar rack