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.
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
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.
And there was no reason to think that the landing would go wrong, because the tires are redundant.
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.
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 :-(
Probably because it's considered too big to fail. It's pretty much backed by the US gov.
On the funny side of this, I hope their car insurance covers falling airplane tires :-)
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.
There is no unique value-add from Twitter in this case, except to push the visibility of some random crypto news site.
What about fighters and bombers?
They're probably not cheap.
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.
I can't tell if you are serious, but I count 7 commercial aviation accidents in the past week...
Profit over all else, capitalism!
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.
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...
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.
Witchcraft!
(But yeah, blaming the _pilot_ for the door plug falling out seems particularly perverse.)
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
Like, I get that people have always been dumb, but man are they loud and aggressive about it these days
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.)
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 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.
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.
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?
It’s likely less disruptive to ATC at SFO too to not have them circling if they don’t have to.
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.
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).