Airline explains why plane wing covered in duct tape

[Oxman]

Airline explains why plane wing covered in duct tape after photo goes viral

The tape made for an alarming sight what was thought to be a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner for Australian opera singer David Wakeham who last week shared a photo to Twitter, where it later went viral.

nypost.com

Duct tape on a plane initially thought to be holding its wing together has been revealed as having a far less questionable purpose.

The tape made for an alarming sight what was thought to be a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner for Australian opera singer David Wakeham who last week shared a photo to Twitter, where it later went viral.

“When choosing your favourite airline, choose wisely. Profits before safety,” his post, which was also shared to Reddit, read.

While at the time it was joked the tape was used for “temporary repairs”, it has since been identified as commonly used “speed tape”, which was most likely used to cover peeling paint, according to CheckMate, a weekly fact checking newsletter from RMIT and ABC.


The Boeing 787-9 planes have been identified as being “prone to paint adhesion failures due to Ultra Violet (UV) ray damage”, a 2020 report from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.


The Boeing 787-9 planes have been identified as being “prone to paint adhesion failures due to Ultra Violet (UV) ray damage”, a 2020 report from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

More recently, an Air New Zealand spokesperson told Stuff paint peeling on the wings of Boeing 787-9 aircraft was a global problem.

The seemingly widespread issue has been played down by Boeing, which has made attempts to alleviate concerns of travellers about the tape suggesting issues with structural integrity.

“The peeling does not affect the structural integrity of the wing, and does not affect the safety of flight,” a Boeing spokesperson told aviation publication Simple.

The only potential risk posed by peeling paint was to airline staff when using “vacuum-type fall arrest protection systems”, the FAA document said.

Plane manufacturer Airbus has also been struck by paint peeling issues with its A350 aircraft, having faced legal action from Qatar Airways.

The complaint was shut down by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) though, which responded saying the paint issue didn’t affect the structure of the aircraft or introduce other risks.

Similarly, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said no risk was posed to passengers when tape repairs were made to aircraft.

“Any repairs, including temporary tape repairs, must be made in accordance with approved maintenance instructions,” a spokesperson told CheckMate.

The plane was initially thought to be owned by Qantas, but a spokesperson told news.com.au the company was not convinced it was one of theirs.

It was confirmed paint peeling on wings of Boeing 787 aircraft in operation more than four years was not uncommon and had been noted in airlines across the globe.

 

[fholbert]

Someone needs to tell them they make duct tape in white.

 

[knot4u]

View attachment 67204

Airline explains why plane wing covered in duct tape after photo goes viral

The tape made for an alarming sight what was thought to be a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner for Australian opera singer David Wakeham who last week shared a photo to Twitter, where it later went viral.

nypost.com

View attachment 67203


Duct tape on a plane initially thought to be holding its wing together has been revealed as having a far less questionable purpose.

The tape made for an alarming sight what was thought to be a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner for Australian opera singer David Wakeham who last week shared a photo to Twitter, where it later went viral.

“When choosing your favourite airline, choose wisely. Profits before safety,” his post, which was also shared to Reddit, read.

While at the time it was joked the tape was used for “temporary repairs”, it has since been identified as commonly used “speed tape”, which was most likely used to cover peeling paint, according to CheckMate, a weekly fact checking newsletter from RMIT and ABC.


The Boeing 787-9 planes have been identified as being “prone to paint adhesion failures due to Ultra Violet (UV) ray damage”, a 2020 report from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.


The Boeing 787-9 planes have been identified as being “prone to paint adhesion failures due to Ultra Violet (UV) ray damage”, a 2020 report from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

More recently, an Air New Zealand spokesperson told Stuff paint peeling on the wings of Boeing 787-9 aircraft was a global problem.

The seemingly widespread issue has been played down by Boeing, which has made attempts to alleviate concerns of travellers about the tape suggesting issues with structural integrity.

“The peeling does not affect the structural integrity of the wing, and does not affect the safety of flight,” a Boeing spokesperson told aviation publication Simple.

The only potential risk posed by peeling paint was to airline staff when using “vacuum-type fall arrest protection systems”, the FAA document said.

Plane manufacturer Airbus has also been struck by paint peeling issues with its A350 aircraft, having faced legal action from Qatar Airways.

The complaint was shut down by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) though, which responded saying the paint issue didn’t affect the structure of the aircraft or introduce other risks.

Similarly, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said no risk was posed to passengers when tape repairs were made to aircraft.

“Any repairs, including temporary tape repairs, must be made in accordance with approved maintenance instructions,” a spokesperson told CheckMate.

The plane was initially thought to be owned by Qantas, but a spokesperson told news.com.au the company was not convinced it was one of theirs.

It was confirmed paint peeling on wings of Boeing 787 aircraft in operation more than four years was not uncommon and had been noted in airlines across the globe.

Using "speed tape", or aluminum tape is not uncommon, and it's not duct tape. I think a roll like the size of the one you posted probably costs $500-1000 depending on its spec. I've never actually had to apply it to the exterior of an airplane that was going flying but I have seen several examples of airplanes with engineering dispositions that have. The most common would be a windshield replacement or any other panel removal that requires sealant and the airplane HAS to fly before the sealant cures and the tape would be removed later. More unusual would be a Gulfstream that tore off its winglet on a light pole taxiing on a small, dark ramp and it came in with a stump covered in speed tape (the pilots said the wing was slightly heavy and just used aileron trim). The oddest one was a Challenger that had a co pilot windshield shatter and in the AMM there's a procedure to completely cover the windshield with very specific speed tape that allowed them to ferry it to us for repair. It was an odd thing to see an airplane taxiing in with half of the windshields completely taped over, but it was legal. As far as the airplane in the article missing paint that exposes bare carbon fiber composites to the effects of UV is a bad thing and this might be a stop gap measure trying to mitigate future costs until they figure out how to fix this issue fleet wide.

Edit to add: Just like almost all consumables in aviation these materials have expiration dates and storage requirements. You can't just keep a roll in your toolbox and expect to use it legally.

 

[Flyinthrew]

I’ve flown some UUUUUGLY airplanes with some UUUUUGGLY corrosion control measures done by painters who were qualified and meant well, but they were very much in the “good enough for government work” bracket on the craftsmanship continuum. I’ve heard it called the “Original 50 Shades of Grey Machine.”

That said, in a business where there are literally MILLIONS of people who are going to see your worst work and judge your brand on THAT, I submit that you might amend your manuals to be somewhat less permissive for surfaces that passengers stare at for 15 straight hours. Is it safe even though it is ugly? Yes. Is it acceptable? That’s a business decision that the maintenance people and flyers shouldn’t make.

 

[Roger Roger]

I don’t think it’s a matter of not trying enough, they literally are having a hard time keeping the paint sticking. Part of the learning curve of building composite airliners.

 

[Flyinthrew]

I don’t think it’s a matter of not trying enough, they literally are having a hard time keeping the paint sticking. Part of the learning curve of building composite airliners.

The 787 first flew in what, 2010? How mich time do the engineers need? Just think; somebody out there thinks supersonic cruise is going to be a thing very soon. If the manufacturers can’t even get the paint right at M.80 they don’t have a chance at M1.2+

 

[Minuteman]

I feel like I've seen a few examples recently where somebody like ““a famous opera performer”” posts a picture of some tape and then either the airline or some rando from the internet chimes-in “akshully, that looks like speed tape,” and the response is ... “oh, alrighty then.”

It's weird how that shuts it down. “Speed tape,” like that point of clarification changes their understanding.

 

[NovemberEcho]

I feel like I've seen a few examples recently where somebody like ““a famous opera performer”” posts a picture of some tape and then either the airline or some rando from the internet chimes-in “akshully, that looks like speed tape,” and the response is ... “oh, alrighty then.”

It's weird how that shuts it down. “Speed tape,” like that point of clarification changes their understanding.

My guess is it tells them it’s an actual ok part and not just some mechanic saying duck it

 

[ahw01]

I feel like I've seen a few examples recently where somebody like ““a famous opera performer”” posts a picture of some tape and then either the airline or some rando from the internet chimes-in “akshully, that looks like speed tape,” and the response is ... “oh, alrighty then.”

It's weird how that shuts it down. “Speed tape,” like that point of clarification changes their understanding.

What about the 100 other pax, are they not important - hate that a celeb tips the balance

 

[CFIT99]

I could google his but still this is more fun: what does "speed tape" cost and what is it speed is it rated for?

 

[knot4u]

I could google his but still this is more fun: what does "speed tape" cost and what is it speed is it rated for?

The tapes vary in thickness, material and adhesive. You won't find the expensive stuff at Aircraft Spruce, those tapes are meant for masking during paint stripping or paint application. If there's an AMM procedure or an engineering disposition that allows an airplane to fly with tape it will specify exactly what tape will be used. In the Challenger example I posted above the tape was very specific because if it did peel off in flight there's a pretty good chance it might've been ingested by the engines. Go find the price, speed rating and availability of that tape on Google.

 

[Minuteman]

A 2-inch by 60-yard roll (duct tape-sized) of 3M "425" aluminum tape will cost ~$100 per roll. It advertises an "adhesion to steel" of 47 lb/in and a tensile strength of 28 lb/in.

https://www.grainger.com/product/3M-Foil-Tape-3M-425-54EN08

If you want to go from 2-inches wide to 3-inches, that doubles the price per roll.

 

[knot4u]

A 2-inch by 60-yard roll (duct tape-sized) of 3M "425" aluminum tape will cost ~$100 per roll. It advertises an "adhesion to steel" of 47 lb/in and a tensile strength of 28 lb/in.

https://www.grainger.com/product/3M-Foil-Tape-3M-425-54EN08

If you want to go from 2-inches wide to 3-inches, that doubles the price per roll.

You're right. You know more about it than I do. Go patch up your airplane with tape you've bought from Grainger, it will not be my issue when you make a smoking hole.

 

[Minuteman]

You're right. You know more about it than I do. Go patch up your airplane with tape you've bought from Grainger, it will not be my issue when you make a smoking hole.

i don't have an airplane.

Nor do I perform maintenance and repairs on them.

Nor was I attempting to refute what you shared with us about taping-up a Challenger windscreen.

The $100 per roll stuff was the most-expensive stuff I found on Grainger.

Do you remember the specs required by the AMM?

 

[knot4u]

i don't have an airplane.

Nor do I perform maintenance and repairs on them.

Nor was I attempting to refute what you shared with us about taping-up a Challenger windscreen.

The $100 per roll stuff was the most-expensive stuff I found on Grainger.

Do you remember the specs required by the AMM?

I don't currently have access to the to the Bombardier manuals, I think it was a 604. I can't guarantee that procedure is still in the online manuals, I was very upset at one point to find out that the procedure for replacing flight control surface hinge bearings had been removed from the online Gulfstream manuals, so I went back into the archives and found it on paper and old CDs. But it wasn't in the latest revision therefore it wasn't legal. Even asking for an engineering disposition on a G-IV is $1K before they'll even look at the issue even if it was something that used to be in either the AMM or the SRM. I guess my original point in this thread was not necessarily about the tape itself but the fact that someone, somewhere signed off on it with the approval of either their company engineers or the manufacturer. Like I've said, I never signed off an airplane with tape on the exterior, but it does happen and uninformed people freak out. Not to mention gaffers tape is better than duct tape, but maybe I feel that way because my dad worked on movies and not on heating and air conditioning. And "speed tape" would be horrible compared to the multi purpose tool either are today.