6 ms·
Tire falls off United plane after takeoff from SFO
- thegrim000 3y agoThere's probably 1000 major aviation incidents each year, every year, for many decades. We're submitting Hacker News articles on every one now? Why? We never did before.
- defrost 3y ago"Major" is sufficient to remove an aircraft from service. Globally: According to ACRO, recent years have been considerably safer for aviation, with fewer than 170 incidents every year between 2009 and 2017, compared to as many as 226 as recently as 1998. {1} Tires falling off of a passenger plane isn't "major", nor is it common - it's a rare occcurence, one that should never happen, and something that has the potential to cost lives. Why are reports being submitted now? It's only recently become common knowledge that various aircraft companies that were once the pinnacle of safety practices (eg: Boeing) are now relatively rotten to the core and troubled with cost cutting practices and a lack of safety culture. {1} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_inciden... {2} https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
- tracker1 3y agoThis is the problem with govt picked winners and monopolies. It's the worst of big govt combined with the worst of chrony capitalism.
- drawkward 3y agoYikes, Boeing!
- shiroiushi 3y agoThis was a 777; those planes aren't in production any more, so this plane is probably at least 10 years old I'm guessing. This isn't a factory or design issue, this is a maintenance issue, and that falls on the airline, United.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y agoThis could be a maintenance issue.
- washadjeffmad 3y agoNot a counter, but who is responsible for maintenance? I ask assuming Boeing issues are the new "derailments".
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y agoIn this case United Airlines is.
- Jtsummers 3y agohttps://www.unitedtechops.com https://www.unitedtechops.com is who does the work, but United is responsible for it as the operator of the aircraft.
- paulddraper 3y agoThe operator (United).
- Optimal_Persona 3y agoIndicates their tireless commitment to air safety!
- geoelectric 3y agotire from the Boeing 777-200 came off the rear landing gear Well, at least it wasn’t the front that fell off.
- btown 3y agoFor the uninitiated: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM
- hasty_pudding 3y agoWouldn't be a big deal anyway because planes aren't in the environment.
- ronsor 3y agoNot since we moved them outside the environment a couple decades ago—that jet fuel too.
- hinkley 3y agoThat’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.
- habaneromocha 3y agoWell, how was it un-typical?
- pastureofplenty 3y agoNews you love to see when you're flying out of SFO in a couple weeks.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoHoly fuck. I was on board this exact airplane just two days ago.
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y agoThat flight, or that plane?
- bombcar 3y agoAfter takeoff it’s just useless extra weight - why not jettison it? Just like disabling debug messages in production releases. ;)
- dieselgate 3y agoYou have to be able to land
- jkestner 3y agoWhere’s your “build the airplane on the way down” spirit?
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y agoAgile
- tzs 3y agoWhy divert to LAX instead of going back to SFO? Is it just a scheduling thing, e.g., it would take longer to get a replacement plane to continue the flight from SFO than it would to fly to LAX and get a replacement there?
- steffan 3y agoA plane heading to Japan from SFO would be carrying quite a bit of fuel. It's possible / likely that the takeoff weight would exceed the safe landing weight, requiring circling to burn off fuel or dumping fuel. If they have to get rid of fuel anyway, it might make sense to continue to another airport where they could get a replacement aircraft.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoIn addition to that, SFO is already down a runway which is causing some delays because planes need to go around the construction zones. An airplane with a potentially damaged landing gear can close all of the remaining runways due to the cross layout that SFO uses. LAX is laid out a little differently, so you aren't risking having the whole airport close for a while if something does go wrong. When combined with the need to burn off some of the fuel, LAX seems like a sensible choice. You don't need to travel over any particularly tall terrain, LAX is large and should have sufficient runways for an airplane that might have trouble coming to a stop quickly. Since there was no issue with actual in-flight operation of the airplane, it's also not a 'land right the frak now' situation.
- hinkley 3y agoIs SFO a maintenance hub? That could be another variable, if the repair facilities in LAX are better. And then there’s a potential bias against SFO, given they just let an airplane take off that HAD A WHEEL FALL OFF. Maybe they aren’t the best party to examine the plane just now.
- nradov 3y agoUnited Airlines has its main maintenance hub at SFO, and smaller ones at several other airports including LAX. https://www.mroglobal-online.com/companies/united-technical/ https://www.mroglobal-online.com/companies/united-technical/
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39635232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39635232
- callalex 3y ago[flagged]
- interestica 3y agoThis is minor?
- up2isomorphism 3y agoNot sure if this should be called “clickbait “.