曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

wipers.”
The captain did not flare the airplane for landing.
The airplane, which was near its maximum gross
weight, bounced on touchdown. The first officer observed that the airplane was airborne over the right side of the runway, called for a go-around and applied full power.
The flight crew conducted the go-around and subsequent landing without further incident.
While taxiing the airplane to the gate, the flight
crew was told by the station maintenance manager
(SMM), who had been seated in the cabin, that 12
passenger-service units and an over-aisle video-display screen had broken loose. The captain told the SMM to conduct a hard-landing inspection.
The first officer and the SMM conducted walk-around visual inspections of the airplane but found no damage.
“during his initial ‘walk around’ the exterior of the aircraft, the SMM looked, from experience,
for signs of bursting or over-pressuring of [tires], integrity of the main [landing gear] and body landing gear, the airframe in general and engine-
alignment marks,” the report said. “There were no signs of structural damage.”
The SMM then conducted the “Phase i” hard-
landing inspection procedures specified in the
aircraft maintenance manual (aMM).
“The Phase I inspection covers four sheets from the maintenance manual and directs attention primarily at the landing gear, the engine nacelles and the engine attachments to the wing,” the re-port said. “In addition, items are included for the wing-leading-edge fairings, the trailing-edge-flap mechanisms, the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank and the aPu [auxiliary power unit] supports. … in ad-dition to the Phase I items specified, he performed a

number of checks based on his experience, such as opening and closing all the exterior cabin [doors]
and baggage doors on the aircraft, looking for any
signs of misalignment or mismatch.”
the six-hour inspection revealed no indica-tion of structural damage. Thus, the SMM was not required to proceed with the more detailed Phase II hard-landing inspection specified by the AMM. Nevertheless, the SMM filed an Acceptable Deferred Defect report, requiring the airplane to receive a Phase I inspection upon its return to London, England.
“During the repeat Phase I inspection at London Gatwick [Airport], signs of fuselage skin damage
were noted just aft of the wing … with substantial areas of ‘quilting’ and ‘rippling’ of the skin panels,”
the report said.
The subsequent Phase II inspection revealed
structural damage. after extensive repairs were
performed, the airplane was returned to service on June 1, 1997.
The report said that the airplane-condition moni-toring system recorded a vertical acceleration
of 2.8 g and a sink rate of 1,070 feet per minute
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Stabilized Approach And Flare Are Keys to Avoiding Hard Land(6)