United Strikes again sticks another one in the mud

[Bksmithca]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10481050/edmonton-international-airport-flight-stuck/

United got another one struck in the mud at YEG. United flight 2308 from Denver

[MechEngr]

I wondered why the airplane type wasn't part of the headline - no need to guess from that missing information that it's not Boeing.

[A0283]

Instead of posting subjective comments it might help if you read the linked article and find at the bottom of the article:

“The plane involved is an Airbus A320-232, which United Airlines said was carrying 165 passengers and 5 crew members.”

Your comment shows no respect to the poster who takes the time to share information with us all.

Among aerospace professionals it is common practice to dig up and share facts first, …

[MechEngr]

Apparently the acrid sarcasm was missed. I was comparing headlines to when a 737 went into the dirt.

Boeing 737 Max 8 rolling off runway is 1 of 6 plane problems for United Airlines this week

Boeing 737 Max 8 ran off Texas runway ‘into grassy area’, says United Airlines
Incident is latest in a week of safety issues for airline, all involving Boeing planes, including a tire falling off and a flaming engine

United flight goes off runway and rolls ‘on to the grass,’ forcing passengers to evacuate in latest Boeing drama

I did read the article which is how I saw that the make and model of this plane are buried at the end rather than headlined.

[Bksmithca]

I wondered why the airplane type wasn't part of the headline - no need to guess from that missing information that it's not Boeing.
As everyone says us damned Canadians are too polite. And could be that Boeing is a US company and Canadians don't care.

[Bksmithca]

Instead of posting subjective comments it might help if you read the linked article and find at the bottom of the article:

“The plane involved is an Airbus A320-232, which United Airlines said was carrying 165 passengers and 5 crew members.”

Your comment shows no respect to the poster who takes the time to share information with us all.

Among aerospace professionals it is common practice to dig up and share facts first, …
Sorry not offended by MechEngr comments

[A0283]

In many events it’s only known that an aircraft had an issue. Which starts the article.
Later more information comes available and this is added to the article.
Don’t think there are many journalists who can distinguish an A from B or a C.

Your use of the word buried suggests intent.

With the persisting failures at B (facts) it should be no surprise that the press report on this. You can use pprune to separate fact from fiction.

[MechEngr]

It's possible that is true - but the first facts about the particular flight they list is the airline and flight number, for which the equipment would be readily available if the reporter cared to find out. Any update should be to that line of the article.

Here's fun. I searched using Google for "airbus goes off runway".

Top result:

Terrifying moment Boeing 767 smashes into runway as the FedEx plane makes emergency landing without a nose gear in Turkey - in latest disaster for the plane manufacturer

I realize the recent Boeing slide-off incident got more news traction because of the broken leg (they shoot horses, don't they?) and this is just a little off-roading, but the news service algorithms just crank the amplifier knob.

I didn't find neutral stories until a search in the News category for "United Airlines flight 2308" and those were both aviation specific outlets.

[Bksmithca]

MechEngr (javascript:void(0)) firstly you need to understand that Edmonton doesn't see a lot of aircraft incidents. If memory serves my right last one would have been in 2022 and it was a light aircraft that flipped in a lake near Cooking lake Airport. Also the reporter is an online reporter so likely got the information handed to her to write up.

[Pilot DAR]

Is there any fact in this event which suggests that the manufacturer of the airplane was a factor in the excursion from the hard surface? Can we aviation professionals depend upon the media to correctly research the details, or even care? Are we doing our own industry any service by feeding into artificial drama associated with non relevant information (the manufacturer)?

To make what we post here professional, an important element is that it is correct, and relevant. Otherwise, we aviation professionals are hardly better than the media we criticize for failing to convey information correctly. We need to be the ones who set the standard for presenting correct information, and suppressing nonsense! If not us, who?

[Lonewolf_50]

If not us, then who? :E
Nobody dead, so that's a good thing.
(MechEngr has a point, but let's not derail from discussing this particular event).
Article Headline is: Plane wheel gets stuck in mud at Edmonton International AirportA flight arriving at the Edmonton International Airport (https://globalnews.ca/tag/edmonton-international-airport) had an unexpected hiccup when a rear wheel rolled off the tarmac and got stuck in some grass and mud on Tuesday afternoon.

Around 2:20 p.m., United Airlines flight 2308 from Denver to Edmonton was “disabled when its back wheel became stuck just off the maneuvering area while taxiing into YEG,” according to the airport.

“One of the wheels got stuck. Obviously, we’ve been experiencing a quite a bit of rain today, and that aircraft was then disabled,” said airport spokesperson Erin Isfeld.
Lesson learned: keep your wheels on the tarmac, particularly in rainy weather. :)

[MechEngr]

Some better photos: https://www.facebook.com/aflyguyslounge/posts/992636595860314
(if the above link doesn't show replace the blanks below with "/"
www.facebook.com aflyguyslounge_posts_992636595860314

It's even more confusing looking at the airport satellite image as to how the plane managed to get there.

An overview showing the same structure as the facebook photo to give an overall picture.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/613x560/yeg2_10c708d69cd62349286eb80d04c9d2e6fa7556d2.png


Closeup to show the taxiway markings. I marked the falloff with the red X; were they trying to make the sharp turn? This is not a great place to be stingy with the concrete.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1075x544/yeg_05546d9f1eb085952d0373abb16156f8ce5ff303.png

[BugBear]

"This is not a great place to be stingy with the concrete."
Boy howdy

Dunno how familiar crew were, but that turn is deceptive as Hell. There is "radius" poured in that X but it looks like a shallow drain only. Not gonna support an aircraft. If mistaken for Taxiway, it is an invitation to bore a hole with gear.

[punkalouver]

Its simple, take it long before turning tightly. One can even go left of the centerline of the first taxiway a bit if they want more spacing.

Suspect the captain never flew the 777 and perhaps tried to follow the yellow line.

[Bksmithca]

Suspect the captain never flew the 777 and perhaps tried to follow the yellow line.
What 777 according to the article and pictures it sure looked like and Airbus A320.

[Capn Bloggs]

What 777 according to the article and pictures it sure looked like and Airbus A320.
You missed the (tongue in cheek) point. An (ex) 777 pilot would probably have given that turn a wide, wide berth by nature.

Be interesting to see what the local airport rules are for A320s doing that turn. The yellow line does look to be (just) wide enough. Cut inside though and bam!

If the captain was taxiing, it could be tricky; not only couldn't he/she see the ditch, they would have to stretch to see the yellow line going off to the (hard) right, not that I've flown a 320.

[punkalouver]

You missed the (tongue in cheek) point. An (ex) 777 pilot would probably have given that turn a wide, wide berth by nature.

Be interesting to see what the local airport rules are for A320s doing that turn. The yellow line does look to be (just) wide enough. Cut inside though and bam!

If the captain was taxiing, it could be tricky; not only couldn't he/she see the ditch, they would have to stretch to see the yellow line going off to the (hard) right, not that I've flown a 320.

It is actually an interesting reply that applies well to pilots looking to minimize risk. Read information thoroughly, perhaps twice. I have found myself scanning over stuff when reading it and missed important info.

In the case of Bksmithca, it appears that the only word thoroughly read before replying was 777 with assumptions made for the rest of the sentence. That can cause an accident in an airliner(and elsewhere).

[FullWings]

I see a fair bit of what I hope is unintentional cutting of corners when taxying behind other aircraft, and if they could see what I see, I think they’d be surprised at how close to the edge they get on occasions.

It’s fairly difficult to go too deep into a turn and you should be aware that you’re about to go on the grass, whereas with a sharp and/or obtuse angle, the main gear on even small aircraft can trail significantly. Best to get into the habit of significantly leading turns early on then it becomes automatic...