[HN Gopher] Boeing 777 loses tire while taking off from SF, crus...
___________________________________________________________________
Boeing 777 loses tire while taking off from SF, crushing cars on
the ground
Author : EarthIsHome
Score : 55 points
Date : 2024-03-07 22:17 UTC (45 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| rvba wrote:
| Who manufactures plane tires? How much do they cost?
|
| What about fighters and bombers?
| JonathonW wrote:
| 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.
| fotta wrote:
| 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
| slt2021 wrote:
| whats the time on the screen?
| fotta wrote:
| 11:24am and 1:17pm
| ro_bit wrote:
| 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?
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| 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.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| 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.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| SFO only has one NS runway open now. Mucking the other would
| be a show stopper and the others are usually departure only.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| the story that never ends...
| plussed_reader wrote:
| ...what's that? Winning the lottery?
| dbg31415 wrote:
| You'd think Boeing would try a bit harder given all the bad
| publicity lately.
|
| Scary thought... this is them trying harder.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Except that Boeing has nothing to do with the maintenance of
| that airplane
| dbg31415 wrote:
| I bet they have maintenance contracts, or partnerships with
| companies that do.
|
| Seems like they would have at least said, "We know there have
| been some issues. We'll incentivize you to sanity check
| everything. Pretty please?"
| barbazoo wrote:
| United airlines has their own maintenance folks
| whoknowsidont wrote:
| That's not actually true. Airlines generally follow the
| procedures set forth by the manufacturer, and they do talk
| with each other quite a bit.
|
| I think what you mean to say is that this is plausibly,
| _likely_ to be a failure on the part of United, not Boeing.
|
| However this would not be the first time that manufacturers
| like Boeing recommend inadequate or faulty maintenance
| procedures.
|
| Only time will tell.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Boeing doesn't do most of the maintenance on the plane, so I
| suspect this one has nothing to do with them at all.
| MBCook wrote:
| 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.
| hughesjj wrote:
| Normally I'd agree, but these days I ain't going if it's boeing
| and I honestly wouldn't assume that anymore.
| barelyauser wrote:
| They are literally falling apart at this point...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| 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...
| heironimus wrote:
| 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.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| They did generally put airports out in the middle of the sticks
| . . . and then stuff grew up around them.
| imbnwa wrote:
| Taking off from O'Hare airport in Chicago typically requires
| ascending over miles of residential neighborhoods
| kortilla wrote:
| There is more risk allowing homes to be built on streets where
| cars go.
| ummonk wrote:
| Those cars are a lot less damaged than I'd have expected. Thank
| goodness no one was hurt.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| Could have been a really serious accident, luckily no injuries.
|
| On the funny side of this, I hope their car insurance covers
| falling airplane tires :-)
| tempestn wrote:
| And somehow all the replies are blaming DEI or affirmative
| action. Twitter's really gone off the rails.
| zerocrates wrote:
| 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.
| hughesjj wrote:
| 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
| klyrs wrote:
| They don't like the optics of directly calling women and
| minorities inferior anymore, DEI is just a dogwhistle.
| zerocrates wrote:
| 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.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| 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?)
| fotta wrote:
| 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
| oynqr wrote:
| Boeing is going to fix this by installing tyre _presence_
| sensors.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| 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
| :-(
| nosmokewhereiam wrote:
| I believe airline sales may pale in comparison to Global
| Services revenue.
| Atotalnoob wrote:
| I have a flight coming up on United's 777s out of SFO....
| Fantastic
| tycho-newman wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-07 23:02 UTC)