6 ms·

FAA investigating after Delta Boeing plane loses front nose wheel before takeoff

33 points by intunderflow 3y ago

keane 3y ago
5 minute audio recoding of the incident from You can see ATC (via liveatc.net): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYIC-Vq13xE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYIC-Vq13xE
rossdavidh 3y ago
Boeing is trying to become for the 21st century, the metaphor which the Titanic was for the 20th.
- nxm 3y ago
  Why are you assuming Boeing’s at fault here?
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Is airbus also responsible for maintenance failures on 30 year old airplanes or do you feel like only Boeing deserves this treatment?
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
    The Boeing that lost its hull plug was how old? A month? Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this, even if it’s delta’s inability to complete regular maintenance that causes their planes tire to fall off.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this No. Boeing deserves total criticism of production and design problems with the 737MAX, but does not deserve random unrelated things being added to the criticism because they're timely.
      - trklausss 3y ago
        We are talking safety here. Even if it is a 30yo plane, and Delta is in charge of maintenance, Boeing as manufacturer should release a TN to mitigate the issue. If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. This should all come from Boeing _before_ it reaches the FAA. That’s the meaning of self-certification through AMCs. I’m assuming here however that there are no TNs associated with this particular issue with the landing gear.
        mlyle 3y ago
        > If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. ... or, you know, sometimes mishaps happen that are not the manufacturer's fault and aren't likely to be mitigated by more manufacturer documentations. You presume a lot.
        trklausss 3y ago
        Totally true! That’s why I don’t blame Boeing yet, but their bad press and mishaps in safety tend to make a bias towards thinking there is something here. I will wait for the FAA report on that :)
        tass 3y ago
        You’re talking about something in a high touch area (thanks to tyre changes) that’s under a lot of stress and is made up of replaceable parts - landing gear is surely not expected to last the life of a plane without having parts replaced.
        trklausss 3y ago
        I agree 100% with you. That’s why you as a manufacturer release proper TNs, maintenance procedures, and inspection intervals, train maintenance crew, etc. I will wait for the FAAs final report, I’m definitely not blaming Boeing here yet, but their bad press is surely a bias point against them and giving a second thought about whether they are doing things right…
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      Tell you what. Let's go on AVHerald and start cross-posting all the maintenance failures here on HN. I see that there was a tire problem with an Airbus A350 when it was landing. And the plane was only 2.9 years old! DAMMIT AIRBUS! And then there was an A321 that had an engine shut down in flight. On a 2.4 year old plane! DAMMIT AIRBUS! It gets better. A young (11.8 years) A321 with pressurization problems. Along the same lines, an A330 (just 18 years old!) failed to pressurize. Then a more scary incident, the brakes failed on a 13 year old A319 in Brazil. Wow! Why didn't Airbus pull the airworthiness certificates for those planes? This is just an awful look for Airbus, and it might be worth more investigation. ... Or, you know, things break, and maintenance is important. A 30 year old plane will require pretty intensive maintenance to keep it in safe flying condition.
  - trklausss 3y ago
    Partly yes. Safety should come in first line from design, second from maintenance. If an airframe is not able to safely fly anymore, it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer. Where did you get that idea? The airworthiness certificate is issued by the FAA and is conditioned on maintenance, among other things.
      - trklausss 3y ago
        It’s issued by the FAA based on the reports from the manufacturer, which can collude, falsify or mislead the authorities. The FAA does 0 testing on the airplanes, it is all done and documented by the manufacturer.
        rootusrootus 3y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding what an airworthiness certificate is. It is a document issued by the FAA to the registered owner of the plane. The manufacturer is not involved. I'd guess you're thinking of the type certificate.
        trklausss 3y ago
        Type certificates are for the whole type, but you are right in that I got it wrong that airworthiness is done by the manufacturer: it’s actually done by CAMOs. In any case, FAA just gives the paper, but does not go around checking bolts and nuts. Delta has its own CAMO (Delta TechOps), which I assume has done the maintenance of this aircraft, but it is yet to be seen whether they followed everything to the T or is there something missing from Boeing’s part. As I said in another comment, I doubt everyone here (which is not bad, it’s just not assuming by default that everything is well done everywhere) and will wait for the FAA report.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
CPLX 3y ago
The plane was built in 1992 and the 757 is a classic model that has a great track record. Whatever this is it probably has absolutely zero to do with the current state of Boeing.
- geonineties 3y ago
  Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Aircraft break all the time, and the FAA investigates all the time. I'm begining to think some people here have short positions in Boeing stock or something.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    We’re pattern matching people and we like to have something to complain about.
    - sph 3y ago
      I wonder how many flight are delayed lately because of overzealous passengers complaining about every nut and bolt in their plane.
  - b33j0r 3y ago
    That’s true. But isn’t that separate from the systemic issues with the MAX line? Which is what I think the main story is here. We’ve been watching it for years. It just cut too many corners to be as reliable as “737” came to be known for. Starting with the CoM being inherently unstable due to the choice of oversized bypass on the engine. I mean, having an autopilot that pretty much just pulls up because the trim isn’t enough? It could work, but it was arguably irresponsible to make a custom package with premium training for _taking off safely_. They tried to make a plane to jam into a certain market segment, made it very customizable, and seem to be gluttons for bad PR. EDIT: I misremembered the CoM problem. The MCAS was introduced on the max 8 to push the nose down because the plane tends to stall on takeoff. Engineering problem for sure, and we solve those; yet still a tradeoff in cost that made a plane unstable. Just kinda smells of a mismanaged program over and over again.
  - 3y ago
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Yesterday, Tuesday 23 January: - a Swiss Air Bombardier C-Series "crew declared emergency reporting steam in the cockpit" [1] - a LATAM 767 "needed to shut one of the engines" [2] - a Lufthansa A320 "decided to divert to Amsterdam reporting a smokey smell in the cabin" [3] - an American 737-800 "initiated a go around advising their flaps did not fully extend" [4] Within that scope, the Delta 757's "nose wheels separat[ing] and roll[ing] away," an incident which caused "a delay of about 5:15 hours," is amusing but unremarkable [5]. (In contrast, today, Wednesday 24 January (EDIT: 2 January), a Japan Airlines A350 "collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames" [6]. No souls lost.) Every day, these issues come up [7]. (Do not click if you're a nervous flier.) Something is wrong with the 737 Max 9, possibly the entire Max series. Modern aviation is safe not because we never have malfunctions, but because we prepare for and learn from them. If you filter for Boeing-specific news, you may not appreciate how much noise is in what you see as signal. [1] https://avherald.com/h?article=51403e71&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51403e71&opt=0 [2] https://avherald.com/h?article=513fed6d&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=513fed6d&opt=0 [3] https://avherald.com/h?article=5140aea1&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5140aea1&opt=0 [4] https://avherald.com/h?article=5140b1b8&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5140b1b8&opt=0 [5] https://avherald.com/h?article=5140ab01&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5140ab01&opt=0 [6] https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0 [7] https://avherald.com https://avherald.com
- cjbprime 3y ago
  (The Japan Air/Coast Guard collision was world news on Jan 2nd, not today.)
- trklausss 3y ago
  1. [6] happened on 2nd of January. 2. [1] is related to consumables (probably batteries; [2] is an engine shutdown issue, not airframe (criticalities are different and guards against its failures are far better risk-managed); [3] related to consumables again; [4] systems/airframe issue. The only incident that could a priori be related to the airframe is [4], and funnily enough it happened on a Boeing. What is demanded from Boeing is that 1) they train maintenance personnel properly, or if not in scope release proper documentation for said training, and 2) they design systems so that maintenance is reduced to a minimum and safety is not compromised. It’s not about “Boeing didn’t plug a door properly”, it’s about “this airplane requires you to tighten the bolts every 300h (came-up numbers here)”. There is the technology to make bolts secure so that they don’t pop out, if you defer safety of the system to maintenance accidents are bound to happen.
mvkel 3y ago
Availability bias. Things break on planes constantly, all the time. Sometimes, rarely, pilots need to declare an emergency. Most of the time, almost always, they land without incident.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[Dupe] Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39124754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39124754

33 points by intunderflow 3y ago

5 minute audio recoding of the incident from You can see ATC (via liveatc.net): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYIC-Vq13xE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYIC-Vq13xE

rossdavidh 3y ago

Boeing is trying to become for the 21st century, the metaphor which the Titanic was for the 20th.

nxm 3y ago
Why are you assuming Boeing’s at fault here?
rootusrootus 3y ago
Is airbus also responsible for maintenance failures on 30 year old airplanes or do you feel like only Boeing deserves this treatment?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  The Boeing that lost its hull plug was how old? A month? Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this, even if it’s delta’s inability to complete regular maintenance that causes their planes tire to fall off.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this No. Boeing deserves total criticism of production and design problems with the 737MAX, but does not deserve random unrelated things being added to the criticism because they're timely.
    - trklausss 3y ago
      We are talking safety here. Even if it is a 30yo plane, and Delta is in charge of maintenance, Boeing as manufacturer should release a TN to mitigate the issue. If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. This should all come from Boeing _before_ it reaches the FAA. That’s the meaning of self-certification through AMCs. I’m assuming here however that there are no TNs associated with this particular issue with the landing gear.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. ... or, you know, sometimes mishaps happen that are not the manufacturer's fault and aren't likely to be mitigated by more manufacturer documentations. You presume a lot.
        trklausss 3y ago
        Totally true! That’s why I don’t blame Boeing yet, but their bad press and mishaps in safety tend to make a bias towards thinking there is something here. I will wait for the FAA report on that :)
      - tass 3y ago
        You’re talking about something in a high touch area (thanks to tyre changes) that’s under a lot of stress and is made up of replaceable parts - landing gear is surely not expected to last the life of a plane without having parts replaced.
        trklausss 3y ago
        I agree 100% with you. That’s why you as a manufacturer release proper TNs, maintenance procedures, and inspection intervals, train maintenance crew, etc. I will wait for the FAAs final report, I’m definitely not blaming Boeing here yet, but their bad press is surely a bias point against them and giving a second thought about whether they are doing things right…
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Tell you what. Let's go on AVHerald and start cross-posting all the maintenance failures here on HN. I see that there was a tire problem with an Airbus A350 when it was landing. And the plane was only 2.9 years old! DAMMIT AIRBUS! And then there was an A321 that had an engine shut down in flight. On a 2.4 year old plane! DAMMIT AIRBUS! It gets better. A young (11.8 years) A321 with pressurization problems. Along the same lines, an A330 (just 18 years old!) failed to pressurize. Then a more scary incident, the brakes failed on a 13 year old A319 in Brazil. Wow! Why didn't Airbus pull the airworthiness certificates for those planes? This is just an awful look for Airbus, and it might be worth more investigation. ... Or, you know, things break, and maintenance is important. A 30 year old plane will require pretty intensive maintenance to keep it in safe flying condition.
- trklausss 3y ago
  Partly yes. Safety should come in first line from design, second from maintenance. If an airframe is not able to safely fly anymore, it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer. Where did you get that idea? The airworthiness certificate is issued by the FAA and is conditioned on maintenance, among other things.
    - trklausss 3y ago
      It’s issued by the FAA based on the reports from the manufacturer, which can collude, falsify or mislead the authorities. The FAA does 0 testing on the airplanes, it is all done and documented by the manufacturer.
      - rootusrootus 3y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding what an airworthiness certificate is. It is a document issued by the FAA to the registered owner of the plane. The manufacturer is not involved. I'd guess you're thinking of the type certificate.
        trklausss 3y ago
        Type certificates are for the whole type, but you are right in that I got it wrong that airworthiness is done by the manufacturer: it’s actually done by CAMOs. In any case, FAA just gives the paper, but does not go around checking bolts and nuts. Delta has its own CAMO (Delta TechOps), which I assume has done the maintenance of this aircraft, but it is yet to be seen whether they followed everything to the T or is there something missing from Boeing’s part. As I said in another comment, I doubt everyone here (which is not bad, it’s just not assuming by default that everything is well done everywhere) and will wait for the FAA report.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

CPLX 3y ago

The plane was built in 1992 and the 757 is a classic model that has a great track record. Whatever this is it probably has absolutely zero to do with the current state of Boeing.

geonineties 3y ago
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Aircraft break all the time, and the FAA investigates all the time. I'm begining to think some people here have short positions in Boeing stock or something.
- bombcar 3y ago
  We’re pattern matching people and we like to have something to complain about.
  - sph 3y ago
    I wonder how many flight are delayed lately because of overzealous passengers complaining about every nut and bolt in their plane.
- b33j0r 3y ago
  That’s true. But isn’t that separate from the systemic issues with the MAX line? Which is what I think the main story is here. We’ve been watching it for years. It just cut too many corners to be as reliable as “737” came to be known for. Starting with the CoM being inherently unstable due to the choice of oversized bypass on the engine. I mean, having an autopilot that pretty much just pulls up because the trim isn’t enough? It could work, but it was arguably irresponsible to make a custom package with premium training for _taking off safely_. They tried to make a plane to jam into a certain market segment, made it very customizable, and seem to be gluttons for bad PR. EDIT: I misremembered the CoM problem. The MCAS was introduced on the max 8 to push the nose down because the plane tends to stall on takeoff. Engineering problem for sure, and we solve those; yet still a tradeoff in cost that made a plane unstable. Just kinda smells of a mismanaged program over and over again.
- 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Yesterday, Tuesday 23 January: - a Swiss Air Bombardier C-Series "crew declared emergency reporting steam in the cockpit" [1] - a LATAM 767 "needed to shut one of the engines" [2] - a Lufthansa A320 "decided to divert to Amsterdam reporting a smokey smell in the cabin" [3] - an American 737-800 "initiated a go around advising their flaps did not fully extend" [4] Within that scope, the Delta 757's "nose wheels separat[ing] and roll[ing] away," an incident which caused "a delay of about 5:15 hours," is amusing but unremarkable [5]. (In contrast, today, Wednesday 24 January (EDIT: 2 January), a Japan Airlines A350 "collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames" [6]. No souls lost.) Every day, these issues come up [7]. (Do not click if you're a nervous flier.) Something is wrong with the 737 Max 9, possibly the entire Max series. Modern aviation is safe not because we never have malfunctions, but because we prepare for and learn from them. If you filter for Boeing-specific news, you may not appreciate how much noise is in what you see as signal. [1] https://avherald.com/h?article=51403e71&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51403e71&opt=0 [2] https://avherald.com/h?article=513fed6d&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=513fed6d&opt=0 [3] https://avherald.com/h?article=5140aea1&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5140aea1&opt=0 [4] https://avherald.com/h?article=5140b1b8&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5140b1b8&opt=0 [5] https://avherald.com/h?article=5140ab01&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5140ab01&opt=0 [6] https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0 [7] https://avherald.com https://avherald.com

cjbprime 3y ago
(The Japan Air/Coast Guard collision was world news on Jan 2nd, not today.)
trklausss 3y ago
1. [6] happened on 2nd of January. 2. [1] is related to consumables (probably batteries; [2] is an engine shutdown issue, not airframe (criticalities are different and guards against its failures are far better risk-managed); [3] related to consumables again; [4] systems/airframe issue. The only incident that could a priori be related to the airframe is [4], and funnily enough it happened on a Boeing. What is demanded from Boeing is that 1) they train maintenance personnel properly, or if not in scope release proper documentation for said training, and 2) they design systems so that maintenance is reduced to a minimum and safety is not compromised. It’s not about “Boeing didn’t plug a door properly”, it’s about “this airplane requires you to tighten the bolts every 300h (came-up numbers here)”. There is the technology to make bolts secure so that they don’t pop out, if you defer safety of the system to maintenance accidents are bound to happen.

mvkel 3y ago

Availability bias. Things break on planes constantly, all the time. Sometimes, rarely, pilots need to declare an emergency. Most of the time, almost always, they land without incident.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[Dupe] Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39124754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39124754