Boeing at X-Roads?
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right. That one doesn't appear to have anything to do with the rudder at all. I was just responding, snarkily, to remi's post about the problematic history of 737 rudder issues. Either I or a previous post I read mixed up the flight numbers.
UA 1539
Apparent but still undetermined problem with rudder controls (pedals), might or might not be due to UA procedures.
It's just that when you hear "737" and "rudder" in the same sentence ... 🤦🏼♂️
The other thread on the runway excursion is they took the turn too fast on a wet runway and skidded off. At this point poor visibility would be advantageous of seeing just how bad the next few seconds were going to be.
Reference: Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
Reference: Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
The other thread on the runway excursion is they took the turn too fast on a wet runway and skidded off. At this point poor visibility would be advantageous of seeing just how bad the next few seconds were going to be.
Reference: Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
Reference: Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
I guess it's Air Force pilots that do that. Navy pilots are good at landing without flare.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thread on the runway excursion is they took the turn too fast on a wet runway and skidded off. At this point poor visibility would be advantageous of seeing just how bad the next few seconds were going to be.
Reference: Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
Reference: Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
United Boeing 737 MAX Suffers Gear Collapse After Landing
I have little sympathy for Boeing, but stuff like this is just reckless and irresponsible.
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...moval-records/
Not a good look for Boeing, especially after their efforts to throw the Spirit workers who fixed the door rivet issue under the bus......
Not a good look for Boeing, especially after their efforts to throw the Spirit workers who fixed the door rivet issue under the bus......
Boeing should stock MAX cockpits with those sunglasses when the airplanes leave Renton. It might help to reduce the number of shameless clickbait headlines like this one on the runway excursion:
United Boeing 737 MAX Suffers Gear Collapse After Landing
I have little sympathy for Boeing, but stuff like this is just reckless and irresponsible.https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...moval-records/
Not a good look for Boeing, especially after their efforts to throw the Spirit workers who fixed the door rivet issue under the bus......
Not a good look for Boeing, especially after their efforts to throw the Spirit workers who fixed the door rivet issue under the bus......
The real question now becomes - who and why did they do that? Pressure from above to reduced paperwork and defect records, or a lazy worker who just wanted to avoid the paperwork (i.e. systematic vs. poor workmanship).
BTW Remi, your vendetta against Boeing is well noted, but trying to blame Boeing for a pilot driving off the runway and into a ditch is simply not a good look...
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that we can't actually know, yet, that the turn/skid at what looks like excessive speed was the only cause, but nothing so far suggests that it wasn't.
Landing gear is designed for vertical loads, not sideways ones. Aircraft tyres aren’t designed for high speed cornering, particularly in the wet. Compare the tread pattern of your car tyres with that of your aircraft and you’ll see a big difference.
Even turning too tightly at low speed when lining up on a wet runway can have you sliding sideways, especially if the area has paint or rubber on its surface.
Even turning too tightly at low speed when lining up on a wet runway can have you sliding sideways, especially if the area has paint or rubber on its surface.
I could be wrong. Show me the evidence that Boeing is best in class in safety, best in class in quality, and best among peers in defense contract bidding and management.
Back on topic, ish, we know the gear failed, and we know the aircraft departed the runway. I haven't yet heard which came first or any other relevant facts. It's reasonable to suspect that that runway departure could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that landing gear failure could cause runway departure. It's reasonable to suspect that faulty maintenance could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that manufacturing defects could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that the aircraft departed the runway due to pilot error. It's reasonable to suspect that the aircraft departed the runway due to a cause other than pilot error.
But the facts may be out there already. They will certainly appear in the initial report assuming NTSB considers it an incident and writes one.
I think it's clickbait unless there's evidence that the damage isn't a result of the obviously most-likely factors. Unless the headline writer is completely clueless, s/he knows that readers will interpret the headline as meaning that the MLG failed on touchdown or rollout. And everything we can see and that is reported indicates that it failed from side-loading as the aircraft skidded and the gear stuck in the grass and muck.
I agree that we can't actually know, yet, that the turn/skid at what looks like excessive speed was the only cause, but nothing so far suggests that it wasn't.
I agree that we can't actually know, yet, that the turn/skid at what looks like excessive speed was the only cause, but nothing so far suggests that it wasn't.
Landing gear is designed for vertical loads, not sideways ones. Aircraft tyres aren’t designed for high speed cornering, particularly in the wet. Compare the tread pattern of your car tyres with that of your aircraft and you’ll see a big difference.
Even turning too tightly at low speed when lining up on a wet runway can have you sliding sideways, especially if the area has paint or rubber on its surface.
Even turning too tightly at low speed when lining up on a wet runway can have you sliding sideways, especially if the area has paint or rubber on its surface.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You disagree. OK. Back to Boeing at a crossroad.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do know that it's also impressive in the real world:
Ad hominem argument doesn't belong here. Meanwhile you're simply wrong in your claim that I have a "vendetta" against Boeing. I think they are an aerospace company with a thoroughly and irreparably failed safety and quality culture, with a defense business having persistently incompetent contract management. That's not a vendetta. It's an assertion, and I think there is powerful evidence that it's also a fact.
I could be wrong. Show me the evidence that Boeing is best in class in safety, best in class in quality, and best among peers in defense contract bidding and management.
Back on topic, ish, we know the gear failed, and we know the aircraft departed the runway. I haven't yet heard which came first or any other relevant facts. It's reasonable to suspect that that runway departure could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that landing gear failure could cause runway departure. It's reasonable to suspect that faulty maintenance could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that manufacturing defects could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that the aircraft departed the runway due to pilot error. It's reasonable to suspect that the aircraft departed the runway due to a cause other than pilot error.
But the facts may be out there already. They will certainly appear in the initial report assuming NTSB considers it an incident and writes one.
I could be wrong. Show me the evidence that Boeing is best in class in safety, best in class in quality, and best among peers in defense contract bidding and management.
Back on topic, ish, we know the gear failed, and we know the aircraft departed the runway. I haven't yet heard which came first or any other relevant facts. It's reasonable to suspect that that runway departure could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that landing gear failure could cause runway departure. It's reasonable to suspect that faulty maintenance could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that manufacturing defects could cause landing gear failure. It's reasonable to suspect that the aircraft departed the runway due to pilot error. It's reasonable to suspect that the aircraft departed the runway due to a cause other than pilot error.
But the facts may be out there already. They will certainly appear in the initial report assuming NTSB considers it an incident and writes one.
But the point remains - immediately jumping on this incident as further evidence of Boeing issues doesn't help your case, and almost smacks of desperation (i.e. 'a bad look'). ALL reports so far suggest pilot error, rather than any issue with the aircraft. Further, with all the focus on issues with the MAX, do you honestly believe that if there was any indication of an aircraft fault - especially something as obviously dangerous as a gear failure - we'd still be hearing crickets over 48 hours later?
The FAA considers a runway excursion as potentially catastrophic - they'd be all over this if there was a suggestion that it was aircraft caused.
Vendeta was a poor choice of words on my part - 'Crusade' would have been much more appropriate.
But the point remains - immediately jumping on this incident as further evidence of Boeing issues doesn't help your case, and almost smacks of desperation (i.e. 'a bad look'). ALL reports so far suggest pilot error, rather than any issue with the aircraft. Further, with all the focus on issues with the MAX, do you honestly believe that if there was any indication of an aircraft fault - especially something as obviously dangerous as a gear failure - we'd still be hearing crickets over 48 hours later?
The FAA considers a runway excursion as potentially catastrophic - they'd be all over this if there was a suggestion that it was aircraft caused.
But the point remains - immediately jumping on this incident as further evidence of Boeing issues doesn't help your case, and almost smacks of desperation (i.e. 'a bad look'). ALL reports so far suggest pilot error, rather than any issue with the aircraft. Further, with all the focus on issues with the MAX, do you honestly believe that if there was any indication of an aircraft fault - especially something as obviously dangerous as a gear failure - we'd still be hearing crickets over 48 hours later?
The FAA considers a runway excursion as potentially catastrophic - they'd be all over this if there was a suggestion that it was aircraft caused.
We kinda-sorta trained on 52s (it was cursory) at USAF tech school when I was an enlisted newbie learning to turn wrenches in the dim, distant past. I remember being really impressed with the clever design of the castering MLG. I don't remember being told that there was anything classified about it, but we didn't need to know much and there was much that we weren't told.
I do know that it's also impressive in the real world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUHQ_-l6Qg&t=70s
I do know that it's also impressive in the real world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUHQ_-l6Qg&t=70s
I guess if I was carrying nukes I'd rather have a crosswind landing system better than airliners do at Manchester.