OOPSIE! at KSFO this afternoon! I ducked!

[charliearon 3,025]

 

[Silicus 881]

and oooopsie, it destroyed a car in the parking lot! Luckily nobody was hurt or worst.....

Edited March 8 by Silicus

[ailchim 211]

OK.  Who did the walk-around?

[charliearon 3,025]

9 hours ago, ailchim said:

OK.  Who did the walk-around?

Loose lugnuts?

[MarkW 1,493]

I wonder why they didn't just continue the trip to Japan.  There was no danger in terms of the flight and this way they get to land empty and lighter.  I am sure a wheel can be repaired in Japan.

[ailchim 211]

It was a precision drop into the local Big O branch.  The airline gets good discounts there.

[GACSavannah 227]

3 hours ago, charliearon said:

Loose lugnuts?

>Loose lugnuts?

There are no lugnuts. The wheel assembly is held on by a single large nut, that secures to the end of the axle at the center of the wheel. The nut is torqued and then secured with a metal snap ring to prevent it from backing off.

It is actually not all that uncommon for one to come off. The typical cause is failure to properly torque the nut and install the snap ring, or occasionally failure of the axle itself, where the end of the axle is cracked usually between the threads and simply snaps off, taking the nut with it. With the nut gone, the wheel assembly will slide right off with no problems.

[LRBS 948]

3 hours ago, MarkW said:

I wonder why they didn't just continue the trip to Japan.  

If you understand the system, you can make sound decisions like this PIC.

[crosswind 825]

Making a decision to continue to its final destination could have been an option, but not necessarily the best.  It would very likely be cheaper to have the aircraft return to the US since the event happened just after takeoff, and swap out the aircraft and or repair the item.  Very likely a thorough inspection of the mainwheel assembly would have to be done.  Doing this in another country can sometimes lead to the repairs being lengthy especially if the airline has a contract company or other airline that handles their maintenance instead of their own mechs.

[MarkW 1,493]

13 minutes ago, crosswind said:

Making a decision to continue to its final destination could have been an option, but not necessarily the best.  It would very likely be cheaper to have the aircraft return to the US since the event happened just after takeoff, and swap out the aircraft and or repair the item.  Very likely a thorough inspection of the mainwheel assembly would have to be done.  Doing this in another country can sometimes lead to the repairs being lengthy especially if the airline has a contract company or other airline that handles their maintenance instead of their own mechs.

Good point, I guess they would not really know if there was other damage to the aircraft and better to be close to land than over the Pacific when another issue comes up.  Looks like the aircraft completed the flight from LAX although I cannot tell if it was the same registration number.

[LRBS 948]

During training scenarios, you may encounter situations where you are evaluated on your decision-making skills. Depending on the PIC decision, you may either pass or require additional training. This is the one where "a decision to continue to its final destination" is not an adoption. There are other safe/sound options available.

This reminds me of a reckless operation in 2005 of BA268, a 744 from LAX to LHR after t.o. had one engine burst into flames due to a compressor stall. Instead of returning, they decided to continue, flying over the US continent for at least 3 hours and another about 3 hrs over the pond, thinking that they could make it to their destination. Besides endangering passenger lives, they ended up declaring an emergency and landed short of their destination in Manchester. Yes, a 747 can fly in 3 or even in 2 engines, but not so reckless like this. 

[Mace 1,929]

17 minutes ago, LRBS said:

 

This reminds me of a reckless operation in 2005 of BA268, a 744 from LAX to LHR after t.o. had one engine burst into flames due to a compressor stall. Instead of returning, they decided to continue, 

In that particular scenario, if they had decided to return, in your view would they have had to hold to burn off fuel to get down to proper landing weight, or could they have declared an emergency and landed immediately regardless of weight?   I don't know the sop's for that is why I'm asking...I remember some years ago a plane that jettisoned fuel over a populated area...

[LRBS 948]

39 minutes ago, Mace said:

In that particular scenario, if they had decided to return, in your view would they have had to hold to burn off fuel to get down to proper landing weight, or could they have declared an emergency and landed immediately regardless of weight?   I don't know the sop's for that is why I'm asking...I remember some years ago a plane that jettisoned fuel over a populated area...

There are different ways to approach this.

On the (742, 743,744 and 748) you have the following options:

-dump fuel ASAP, in the hold or fly in different patterns, climb descent, and take into account wins aloft.

-  All these models also allow you to land over the maximum landing weight; an mx inspection will be required.

- Re-declaring an emergency, some criteria must be taken into consideration. 

If I have to jettison fuel due to safety reasons and there is no alternative, I am not concerned about the proximity of populated areas. Crashing into buildings, houses, and other structures is not desirable over dumping fuel if necessary immediately. 

Believe me, it's not easy, and not too many choices sometimes. 

Concerning this incident, my choice would have been to turn back and not proceed further.

Edited March 8 by LRBS

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Every airline is different, there was a British Airways 747 a few years back that took off from Heathrow and lost one engine, but continued onto KLAX on three engines anyways, and were criticized for that. Yes this flight could have continued too it wasn't a risk and to be honest was better off to continue, but United has it's policies too. This was probably considered a liability issue so turn back for an investigation not because of flight safety

Edited March 8 by Matthew Kane

[dmwalker 608]

1 hour ago, Mace said:

I remember some years ago a plane that jettisoned fuel over a populated area

January, 2020.

"The Delta crew reported a compressor stall in the engine "but they got the engine back under control … they were not in an immediate threat condition, and they started out over water," Cox said. "Why they continued to dump fuel at low altitude when they weren't in a fuel-dumping area, and didn't advise ATC [air traffic control] that they were dumping fuel — those are questions this crew is going to have to answer."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jet-fuel-schoolchildren-1.5427384