UAL 757 incident at EWR

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Smythe

They landed hard enough to explode all of the rear landing gear tires

Burst, but not "exploded", and clearly not all of them, judging by the photos and passenger accounts.

[Paul Lupp]

Out of interest, what happens to the checked baggage when an incident like this occurs?
Is it removed promptly or left in place until after initial visual observations, photos etc have been taken by those investigating what happened?

[160to4DME]

Monarch did a similar at GIB

https://assets.publishing.service.go...pdf_507740.pdf

[groundbum]

Originally Posted by Paul Lupp

Out of interest, what happens to the checked baggage when an incident like this occurs?
Is it removed promptly or left in place until after initial visual observations, photos etc have been taken by those investigating what happened?

at least I'd have thought the accident investigators would want to weigh the bags and cargo in each bay to check there were no CoG/overloading issues.. plus check for hazardous cargo declared or otherwise.. You'd hope animals would be flagged up and removed PDQ..

G

[yoko1]

Originally Posted by Smythe

I dont see many posts on how it happened, just the results of what happened. They landed hard enough to explode all of the rear landing gear tires and push the nose gear up through the fuselage. No conjecture, it is there in the images.

I'm sure the preliminary will be out soon enough. There were some unconfirmed passenger reports of a bounced landing, and we all know how those can be mishandled. There was also a report that the engines being driven to a high power setting by the damage, so I may be that the brake energy limits were exceeded in trying to stop the aircraft. It is quite possible that the main gear tires deflated because the thermal plugs gave way after the plane was stopped.

[Cough]

Originally Posted by Smythe

Noticing from the images, the starboard thrust reverser is still deployed, but the port is not.

Originally Posted by blue up

With regards to the post above, the Britannia incident pushed the dog box up just far enough to snag the thrust lever and reverser cables, but not symmetrically. Looks the same here.

Curious - Could a hydraulic leak caused by the deformation around the nose landing gear cause a similar outcome?

[kit500]

Trashed a good plane

Clear day, wind straight down the longest runway at EWR and they trash the airplane. Sure, wait for the investigation results, but if you are on a stabilized approach anywhere near on speed - how do you bounce the aircraft back into the air, porpoise and crunch the nose gear? They can spin it anyway the want - with the blown tires, etc. but this is the kind of stuff you teach Cherokee pilots not to do.

[787PIC]

UAL Arrival!

United was getting ready to scrap the 57’s!
These fellas made it easy for them!😎

Twitter

[/QNi​​​​​​

[yoko1]

Originally Posted by Smythe

Noticing from the images, the starboard thrust reverser is still deployed, but the port is not.

It appears the damaged nose gear was cocked left. It could be that they were using asymmetrical reverse thrust and braking to counter an uncommanded leftward turn toward the runway edge.

[Meester proach]

That’s bad news. Hopefully it won’t be career limiting for the pilots.
I’ve always found derotation rates rather hard to predict on Boeing’s - sometimes the nosewheel squeaks on, sometimes, despite my best efforts , it clatters on.

I was always worried at Gatwick about a flat landing due to that poxy great car park just before 26L. In the summer the thermals off it meant you were often 0 pitch or negative slightly just to stay on the PAPIs, and then lost it all of a sudden as you came out of the effect. I had to recite a mantra to me and my colleagues “ we can’t land in this attitude “.