Boeing 777 loses tire while taking off from SF, crushing cars on the ground(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Boeing 777 loses tire while taking off from SF, crushing cars on the ground
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1765857050188259374
94 comments
Accrual of under-examined metal fatigue likely occurred. This points to serious deficiencies in inspection.
Obviously many eyes will be on Boeing given recent history but I don't know that there's a particular reason to suspect them. In this case I'd look first at possible maintenance issues on United's end, or possibly a manufacturing issue with the wheel/tire.
Yep. Completely logical. Boeing management is increasingly becoming a lightning rod for any issues that occur with Boeing planes.
I'm curious what the pilot's experience was like. Do I get a notification right away that a wheel fell off or was it a radio call from air traffic control? While I'm in flight, do I have a little camera or something where I can see the wheels? Because there's no way to actually go look at them when they're tucked away and you're flying, right? In other words how did they determine that they should still attempt a normal landing (I guess there aren't really any better other options though, are there?)
Someone has already stitched together the ATC/plane radio traffic[1], it sounds like the pilots on the plane initially had no idea. Oakland departure had to tell the pilots that people on the ground saw something falling off the plane.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeGo79nRMwU
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeGo79nRMwU
So what I'm hearing here is, if I see a tire fall of a plane, I should, like, tell someone, who can eventually get word back to the pilot.
they have tire pressure sensors so I'm guessing that the pilot would get an alert that the tire pressure info for that tire disappeared
Boeing is going to fix this by installing tyre _presence_ sensors.
Nah, they'll be going for the latest iteration of TriMCAS - Tricycle Manoeuvrability Characteristics Augmentation System - which makes the plane behave more or less like it should plus or minus some tyres. They'll make the whole system dependent on a single ABS sensor in one of the front wheels though so if that wheel happens to fall off the plane will ground loop upon touching down.
With no manual override.
But only sometimes. ;)
there are dedicated LEDs in the main panel for each wheel indicating if it fell off
takeoff around 11:24am: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haRC034bj-g
landing around 1:17pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkdKhZSZiSM
towed to the gate about 10min after landing
you'll have to scrub because the streams are still live and I don't know how to timestamp a live stream
landing around 1:17pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkdKhZSZiSM
towed to the gate about 10min after landing
you'll have to scrub because the streams are still live and I don't know how to timestamp a live stream
Why did the plane go all the way to LAX rather than landing back at SFO? It clearly seemed to be considered serious since there were emergency vehicles by the runway as a precaution. Is it easier to divert to LAX rather than land back at SFO in this situation?
If you don't have to land with a full load of fuel it's better not to.
And there was no reason to think that the landing would go wrong, because the tires are redundant.
And there was no reason to think that the landing would go wrong, because the tires are redundant.
Fuel dump or burn it off by circling. Going elsewhere would be inconvenient to passengers unless they had a replacement plane and/or crew in LAX which was likely. Unless you're Delta flight 89 and then you dump fuel over populated areas at low altitude.
[deleted]
Any unscheduled landing due to a fault with the aircraft is met with emergency vehicles, even if the reason is minor.
They were above-weight for an emergency landing at SFO. Also, with the loss of one tire, even if they were within weight for an emergency landing, the additional pressure on the remaining tires from the full fuel takes could have caused a catastrophic incident.
In other words, it was safer for the plane to continue to its destination, since the reduced weight from fuel consumption during the flight would make a landing safer and the remaining tires less likely to explode.
In other words, it was safer for the plane to continue to its destination, since the reduced weight from fuel consumption during the flight would make a landing safer and the remaining tires less likely to explode.
Plus a tire doesn’t affect the plane’s ability to fly so spending some extra time in the air isn’t dangerous. And it gives the pilots more time to assess the situation and plan.
It’s likely less disruptive to ATC at SFO too to not have them circling if they don’t have to.
It’s likely less disruptive to ATC at SFO too to not have them circling if they don’t have to.
But its destination was in Japan.
Logistically, I'd think it'd be easier to have the plane return to SFO (potentially after burning off fuel) rather than going to LAX.
Logistically, I'd think it'd be easier to have the plane return to SFO (potentially after burning off fuel) rather than going to LAX.
LAX might be a better option for the airline, as it is a larger airport with several alternative flights towards Japan where passengers could be shuffled into.
SFO only has one NS runway open now. Mucking the other would be a show stopper and the others are usually departure only.
I did a Boeing factory tour back in the day.
At the end of the tour they made everyone say “I ain’t going, if it’s not Boeing” as a way to celebrate their superior plane.
Ironically the mantra now is
“If it’s Boeing, it ain’t going”
Oh how times have changed.
At the end of the tour they made everyone say “I ain’t going, if it’s not Boeing” as a way to celebrate their superior plane.
Ironically the mantra now is
“If it’s Boeing, it ain’t going”
Oh how times have changed.
Boeing shares seem unaffected by this event.
Poor Boeing, this is what happens when you lose your “soul” as a company and you start chasing margins, profit, dividends and you don’t pay attention to you people and your product.
Have seen it happening in many big companies, and I don’t understand why intelligent/educated/competent CEOs don’t see this :-(
Poor Boeing, this is what happens when you lose your “soul” as a company and you start chasing margins, profit, dividends and you don’t pay attention to you people and your product.
Have seen it happening in many big companies, and I don’t understand why intelligent/educated/competent CEOs don’t see this :-(
Tires are a wear item. They get replaced often, by the airline maintenance personnel. On this >20 year old plane, it's far more likely to be United's issue than Boeing's. I'd expect United to see a share price hit if anyone did.
[deleted]
I believe airline sales may pale in comparison to Global Services revenue.
> Boeing shares seem unaffected by this event.
Probably because it's considered too big to fail. It's pretty much backed by the US gov.
Probably because it's considered too big to fail. It's pretty much backed by the US gov.
More likely because it's a maintenance issue at the airline, and not a structural issue at Boeing, especially given the 777's solid track record over decades service.
I would think this is most likely a failure by the maintenance department and not Boeing themselves but wow do they not need to be in headlines again.
If it is a maintenance failure, it's a really big one. You would have to change the tire (really the whole wheel) before this flight, not put the wheel nut on, and not put the wheel nut lock on, and close the wheel nut cover without having done that, probably with a second person there, and have the wheel somehow stay on while taxiing. I think I see the brakes still on the axle in the video, so I suppose this is what happened.
Oh I agree. The idea of forgetting to secure a tire, even without knowing the aviation specific bits, is clearly a HUGE mistake.
But I just don’t see any other way this could happen unless the tire was secured and just that part of the axle broke off which seems incredible unlikely in general, let alone compared to human fallibility.
But I just don’t see any other way this could happen unless the tire was secured and just that part of the axle broke off which seems incredible unlikely in general, let alone compared to human fallibility.
Axles have failed on landing gear, but the wheels on both sides would be affected. The images I have seen of examples are all due to hard landings.
I once saw four tires pop off on a modded hatchback racing down third ring road in Beijing around 2AM in the morning. The only way that could have happened is if the guy just got the car from the shop and someone forgot to add any lug nuts at all. Completely believable in China I guess.
Great piece on Boeing from Last Week Tonight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
i'm wondering what platform could presently take twitter's place for publishing news like this? twitter gets a lot of flak here for political reasons. but it seems it nonetheless serves a societal purpose.
Any Fediverse site works. Most are more publicly accessible than Twitter (no limited number of views, and you can actually see replies). The big advantage is that every organisation can run their own server and not be dependent on a single company.
Twitter is a content aggregator. It doesn't publish news. The Twitter post links to the site "unusual whales" which provides an incomplete text of the story which you can find verbatim on numerous news sites, likely aggregated into numerous other news feeds, any of which could serve as a more authoritative source.
There is no unique value-add from Twitter in this case, except to push the visibility of some random crypto news site.
There is no unique value-add from Twitter in this case, except to push the visibility of some random crypto news site.
Who manufactures plane tires? How much do they cost?
What about fighters and bombers?
What about fighters and bombers?
The same companies that manufacture car tires-- Goodyear, Bridgestone, Michelin, and probably most of the other major manufacturers (but those three definitely all have aircraft tire businesses).
They're probably not cheap.
They're probably not cheap.
About $6000 per tire in the one source I found, which lasts anywhere from 2 to 4 months depending on how many times a day it lands. Bridgestone manufacturers tires for the 777 but it’s not clear if they made the one that fell off
I have a flight coming up on United’s 777s out of SFO…. Fantastic
Don't fret.
You're hearing about this because aviation accidents _don't_ happen.
Boeing is under serious fire largely because of four (extremely terrible) accidents.
Hundreds of thousands of planes fly every day.
Source: I fly 100k+ miles per year for work and leisure.
You're hearing about this because aviation accidents _don't_ happen.
Boeing is under serious fire largely because of four (extremely terrible) accidents.
Hundreds of thousands of planes fly every day.
Source: I fly 100k+ miles per year for work and leisure.
>You're hearing about this because aviation accidents _don't_ happen
I can't tell if you are serious, but I count 7 commercial aviation accidents in the past week...
https://avherald.com/
I can't tell if you are serious, but I count 7 commercial aviation accidents in the past week...
https://avherald.com/
Think about doing an investigation and writeup for every dent and fender bender in the nation, in addition to the major accidents. That’s essentially what you’re looking at, but for aircraft. Across the world, and all the millions of people and ways in which all types of aircraft are used, big, small, old, young, immaculately maintained, beat to shit, etc.
AV Herald FAQ...
Q: What incidents and accidents does The Aviation Herald report?
The Aviation Herald concentrates on "Air Transport", meaning in general The Aviation Herald will report only about commercial flights or commercial operators involving airplanes with capacity for 19 passenger seats or more. Incidents will be reported only during active flights from entering the takeoff runway to leaving the landing runway, other incidents at the gate or during taxi are summarily dismissed. Accidents involving commercial flights with capacity of 19 or more seats are reported as soon as The Aviation Herald gets to know about them.
Q: What do the classifications Crash, Accident, Incident, News or Report mean?
Report indicates an articles about the release and contents of an official incident or accident investigation report, both preliminary and final, where The Aviation Herald did not report the original event. If The Aviation Herald did report the original event, the original article (series) will be updated and the investigation reports mentioned and linked in there. News indicates an article about commercial aviation events, that are not related to an occurrence (incident, accident, crash) or an active flight (a flight is active from entering its takeoff runway to leaving its landing runway). Incident marks any safety relevant event out of the ordinary during flight (from the first human with the intention to fly boarding the aircraft to last human with intention to fly leaving the aircraft), that causes no injuries or death to any people and causes only limited damage (exception: the engines of an aircraft may suffer even catastrophic damage in an incident). Accident marks an incident, that has caused injuries or death to humans or caused significant damage. Crash marks an accident, that is potentially catastrophic (has the potential to kill everybody on board of an airplane).
Q: What incidents and accidents does The Aviation Herald report?
The Aviation Herald concentrates on "Air Transport", meaning in general The Aviation Herald will report only about commercial flights or commercial operators involving airplanes with capacity for 19 passenger seats or more. Incidents will be reported only during active flights from entering the takeoff runway to leaving the landing runway, other incidents at the gate or during taxi are summarily dismissed. Accidents involving commercial flights with capacity of 19 or more seats are reported as soon as The Aviation Herald gets to know about them.
Q: What do the classifications Crash, Accident, Incident, News or Report mean?
Report indicates an articles about the release and contents of an official incident or accident investigation report, both preliminary and final, where The Aviation Herald did not report the original event. If The Aviation Herald did report the original event, the original article (series) will be updated and the investigation reports mentioned and linked in there. News indicates an article about commercial aviation events, that are not related to an occurrence (incident, accident, crash) or an active flight (a flight is active from entering its takeoff runway to leaving its landing runway). Incident marks any safety relevant event out of the ordinary during flight (from the first human with the intention to fly boarding the aircraft to last human with intention to fly leaving the aircraft), that causes no injuries or death to any people and causes only limited damage (exception: the engines of an aircraft may suffer even catastrophic damage in an incident). Accident marks an incident, that has caused injuries or death to humans or caused significant damage. Crash marks an accident, that is potentially catastrophic (has the potential to kill everybody on board of an airplane).
[deleted]
Don’t buy into this hype. Consider how many 777 flights have had absolutely no issue, and that commonplace redundancies made this a relative non-issue for passengers.
Someone is trying to make this company real cheap…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
Profit over all else, capitalism!
Profit over all else, capitalism!
They are literally falling apart at this point...
And somehow all the replies are blaming DEI or affirmative action. Twitter's really gone off the rails.
Somehow the "anti-DEI" people really latched on to Boeing. Not just Boeing themselves but also pilots for some reason... maybe spurred on by the fact that the pilots of the Alaska flight were both women? Not that the pilots did anything wrong in that incident, of course.
I can't really tell if the fact that Elon's been very active in this... let's call it "discourse," is a cause or symptom of it being so oddly widespread. Probably both: a vicious circle.
I can't really tell if the fact that Elon's been very active in this... let's call it "discourse," is a cause or symptom of it being so oddly widespread. Probably both: a vicious circle.
> maybe spurred on by the fact that the pilots of the Alaska flight were both women? Not that the pilots did anything wrong in that incident, of course.
Witchcraft!
(But yeah, blaming the _pilot_ for the door plug falling out seems particularly perverse.)
Witchcraft!
(But yeah, blaming the _pilot_ for the door plug falling out seems particularly perverse.)
As yes, it was the female pilots who made MCAS and forgot to put the bolts on the door...
Like, I get that people have always been dumb, but man are they loud and aggressive about it these days
Like, I get that people have always been dumb, but man are they loud and aggressive about it these days
The left and the right live in completely separate bubbles. You may not be aware of this story, but the right is.
See https://www.faa.gov/pwdp . The Federal Aviation Administration has set a target of hiring people with "severe intellectual disability".
> The Secretary of Transportation has set a hiring goal of three (3) percent per fiscal year for individuals with targeted (severe) disabilities.
> Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring. The targeted disabilities are:
See https://www.faa.gov/pwdp . The Federal Aviation Administration has set a target of hiring people with "severe intellectual disability".
> The Secretary of Transportation has set a hiring goal of three (3) percent per fiscal year for individuals with targeted (severe) disabilities.
> Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring. The targeted disabilities are:
Hearing (total deafness in both ears)
Vision (Blind)
Missing Extremities
Partial Paralysis
Complete Paralysis, Epilepsy
Severe intellectual disability
Psychiatric disability
Dwarfism
By posting this policy you're implying it's obviously a problem... mark me down as undisturbed that there's a light thumb on the scale in favor of hiring blind/deaf/etc/etc/etc employees for what I'm going to reasonably presume are overwhelmingly office jobs sitting at a computer. To the extent they're even getting hired at all.
Of course the disabilities you'd primarily draw attention to would be instead "severe intellectual disability" and "psychiatric disability," I imagine. This program doesn't remove the qualifications for jobs: blind people are not flying planes. People with severe intellectual disabilities are not inspecting them.
Speaking of left/right divides, it seems to me that taking these kinds of policies at or beyond face value is another one of those. The anti-DEI crowd has also decried Boeing having a target to hire more black employees, a policy from 2021 that's resulted in the share of black employees rising from 6.4% to... 7.1%. Definitely a smoking gun. I can go on Twitter to hear about how that 0.7% combines with the lower IQ of HBCU graduates to explain the company's problems.
Of course the disabilities you'd primarily draw attention to would be instead "severe intellectual disability" and "psychiatric disability," I imagine. This program doesn't remove the qualifications for jobs: blind people are not flying planes. People with severe intellectual disabilities are not inspecting them.
Speaking of left/right divides, it seems to me that taking these kinds of policies at or beyond face value is another one of those. The anti-DEI crowd has also decried Boeing having a target to hire more black employees, a policy from 2021 that's resulted in the share of black employees rising from 6.4% to... 7.1%. Definitely a smoking gun. I can go on Twitter to hear about how that 0.7% combines with the lower IQ of HBCU graduates to explain the company's problems.
Surely the FAA has plenty of roles where people with those disabilities could work. It's not like they are trying to add a deaf person to be ATC communication coordinator or a paraplegic to be an emergency firefighter.
You're wrong about the left and right being in bubbles. I read commentary, thinkpieces, and yellow rubbish from both. This isn't the first time I've seen mention of that hiring goal, but I will note that comments like yours are typically the setup for a motte & bailey. But let's assume good faith.
Tell me. Of the targeted disabilities you have listed, which do you think employers should discriminate against, when it does not interfere with a qualified candidate's bona fide job requirements?
Tell me. Of the targeted disabilities you have listed, which do you think employers should discriminate against, when it does not interfere with a qualified candidate's bona fide job requirements?
Twitter artificially promotes bluetick replies, and most people who pay for Twitter are... a bit odd. I expect if you were to filter out the bluetick replies this effect would diminish a bit.
They don't like the optics of directly calling women and minorities inferior anymore, DEI is just a dogwhistle.
Well, fortunately Twitter doesn't show replies anymore. Not to me at least.
assuming there's a statistically significant increase in these kind of accidents: what's your theory on why this is happening? what has change since e.g. 5-10 years ago?
Well, first of all I don't actually think there is? It's clear that the 737 MAX is a particularly problematic design, but industry-wide incidents and accidents vs distance flown continue to fall, and have for decades; even _absolute_ numbers of deaths are falling, despite vastly more planes in the air.
As to the problems with Boeing in particular, they mostly look like cost-cutting and short-termism; the 737 MAX, for instance, is transparently an attempt to squeeze a few more years out of an ancient no-longer-fit-for-purpose design. And the decisions that lead to that were probably made more like _20_ years ago; Boeing should have started developing the 737 replacement quite a while ago. This would suggest that Boeing has poor leadership.
(You could also argue that some of it's the unfortunate reality of the markets; the markets _might_ punish Boeing for making necessary investments with very long pay-off times.)
As to the problems with Boeing in particular, they mostly look like cost-cutting and short-termism; the 737 MAX, for instance, is transparently an attempt to squeeze a few more years out of an ancient no-longer-fit-for-purpose design. And the decisions that lead to that were probably made more like _20_ years ago; Boeing should have started developing the 737 replacement quite a while ago. This would suggest that Boeing has poor leadership.
(You could also argue that some of it's the unfortunate reality of the markets; the markets _might_ punish Boeing for making necessary investments with very long pay-off times.)
My personal theory would be that the change in Boeing management is catching up to them. But like the anti-DEI folks, all I have to base that on is rough correlation. I certainly wouldn't try to make a case based on that alone.
I 100% believe that there is a sizeable contingent of people that pay (more) attention to these things than they usually would. I am a tiny bit of a plane nerd. Weird shit happens with planes regularly, and not just Boeing ones. These events are increasingly making it to HN, and when they do, they’re getting far more traction than they usually do.
There is undoubtedly something fishy going on at Boeing, but that doesn’t mean that more commonplace accidents aren’t being comparatively overpublicised, or that they aren’t getting more traction than usual because there are now far more people waiting with baited breath to jump on anything that portrays Boeing negatively.
All I’m really saying that Boeing hate is now undoubtedly trendy, and that communities like HN are filled with people that have bought into the software engineer God complex enough to think that they can just intuitively understand something as complex as aviation. I’d barely consider myself anything more than a layperson but these Boeing incident threads are increasingly filled with people spouting BS. Again, there is certainly something going wrong at Boeing, but we are well into the territory where there’s a real need to separate signal from noise.
There is undoubtedly something fishy going on at Boeing, but that doesn’t mean that more commonplace accidents aren’t being comparatively overpublicised, or that they aren’t getting more traction than usual because there are now far more people waiting with baited breath to jump on anything that portrays Boeing negatively.
All I’m really saying that Boeing hate is now undoubtedly trendy, and that communities like HN are filled with people that have bought into the software engineer God complex enough to think that they can just intuitively understand something as complex as aviation. I’d barely consider myself anything more than a layperson but these Boeing incident threads are increasingly filled with people spouting BS. Again, there is certainly something going wrong at Boeing, but we are well into the territory where there’s a real need to separate signal from noise.
[deleted]
[deleted]
dbg31415(2)
I mean,the plane still worked. Props to Boeing for making flying jalopies that fall apart, but not fatally.
That is capitalism at work! You want planes with wheels that don't fall off? Buy an Airbus built by those communist Belgians. Just be prepared for your lower stock yields.
That is capitalism at work! You want planes with wheels that don't fall off? Buy an Airbus built by those communist Belgians. Just be prepared for your lower stock yields.
One thing I won't ever understand is why we allow large airports to be located in a way that puts any kind of infrastructure, be it residential, commercial, transportation or recreational, under the flight path for critical phases (i.e. start/land). Right where I used to work there's a memorial placard for a plane that crashed in 1960 due to an engine failure [1], and maybe five minutes worth of walking from where I grew up is another memorial for a plane that failed to start, crashed into a house and led to the deaths of, among others, a significant number of players of the ManU squad [2].
There have been so many incidents and near-incidents that it should be a no-brainer, but eh, guess it's more important to have airports closer to (or even worse, inside) cities. Yes, yes, I know, airplane travel is one of the safest modes of transportation there is, but still, a dominant majority of accidents in commercial aviation happens during landing and takeoff [3]. GA is a bit different because it seems that a lot of GA pilots fuck up maneuvering [4], but still, takeoff and landing account for about half the incidents.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugzeugungl%C3%BCck_am_17._De...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_air_disaster
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/31529/most-airplane-accidents...
[4] https://www.redbirdflight.com/landing/general-aviation-accid...
There have been so many incidents and near-incidents that it should be a no-brainer, but eh, guess it's more important to have airports closer to (or even worse, inside) cities. Yes, yes, I know, airplane travel is one of the safest modes of transportation there is, but still, a dominant majority of accidents in commercial aviation happens during landing and takeoff [3]. GA is a bit different because it seems that a lot of GA pilots fuck up maneuvering [4], but still, takeoff and landing account for about half the incidents.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugzeugungl%C3%BCck_am_17._De...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_air_disaster
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/31529/most-airplane-accidents...
[4] https://www.redbirdflight.com/landing/general-aviation-accid...
You’re confused about why transit hubs, whose purpose is to move people, are built where the people are?
They did generally put airports out in the middle of the sticks . . . and then stuff grew up around them.
If I live within two miles of an airport, directly on the flight path, what are the odds of my house being damaged by a plane versus burning down by other causes, damaged by a falling tree, struck by lightning, etc. I don’t know, but am certain it’s negligible comparatively.
People generally want to travel from areas with lots of people, to other areas with lots of people. So cities.
There has actually been a proposal to move Schiphol (Amsterdam Airport) to an artificial island in the North Sea, because Schiphol is producing a lot of noise pollution for the surrounding towns. (And not just that; my sister used to play hockey on fields under an approach, and sometimes the field would smell like kerosine.)
But such a move would dramatically increase travel time to and from the city. Although maybe you could save time by having a dedicated train line and do checkin before getting in the train, passport check while on the train, etc.
There has actually been a proposal to move Schiphol (Amsterdam Airport) to an artificial island in the North Sea, because Schiphol is producing a lot of noise pollution for the surrounding towns. (And not just that; my sister used to play hockey on fields under an approach, and sometimes the field would smell like kerosine.)
But such a move would dramatically increase travel time to and from the city. Although maybe you could save time by having a dedicated train line and do checkin before getting in the train, passport check while on the train, etc.
There is more risk allowing homes to be built on streets where cars go.
Taking off from O’Hare airport in Chicago typically requires ascending over miles of residential neighborhoods
Still, hard to believe either way: The wheel nut should have something like 250nm of torque, and it has a locking device, and swapping a wheel is a two-man job.