Boeing cargo plane makes emergency 'belly' landing

Daleandee

Daleandee

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
6,889
Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
They just can't get a break ...


 
So often such problems are maintenance shortcomings, not manufacturer design problems. Are 767s in the habit of doing this? No. But the manufacturer is pilloried by the media, and the people suck it up without question.

Many airlines have contracted out their major maintenance to shops in other countries where the labor is much cheaper, and maybe the training isn't what it should be either.
 
No injuries and right on the centerline. Just need to add a skid plate to the nose ...
 
I wouldn't say maintenance shortcomings. They are usually mechanical failures. Perfect maintenance doesn't prevent all mechanical failures.
 
Stuff happens,not being a regular occurrence it’s tough to blame Boeing for this one.
 
Larry in TN said:
I wouldn't say maintenance shortcomings. They are usually mechanical failures. Perfect maintenance doesn't prevent all mechanical failures.
Click to expand...
As an aircraft mechanic, I can tell you that mechanical failures are usually preceded by really poor inspection practices, and that's maintenance. Airliners, like every other retractable, are supposed to get periodic gear swings, with the airplane on jacks, to ascertain that all components are working as designed. All those components are supposed to be inspected to make sure they're secure, not cracking or failing in any other way. hydraulic pressures are checked. The hydraulic hoses need inspecting, and they have calendar lives. 'All of that is a lot of work and takes much time. If it starts getting shorted, inflight failures can happen.

It might be something as simple as a castellated nut that wasn't cotter-pinned, and the nut shook loose and fell off, the bolt fell out, and the part it was attaching now couldn't function.

We see similar failures right here on POA. Magnetos that quit in flight, often discovered on the next runup, sometimes in some really inconvenient place. The mags were not inspected regularly (like every 500 hours) and finally gave up as their points or cam or condenser just wore out. Alternators quit regularly because the recommended brush inspections aren't being done. Vacuum pumps fail for the same reason. Mechanical failures due to maintenance failures.
 
Is that foam or water coming from the trucks? Are the engines affected by the foam? And it’s always nice to see the nose up attitude on landing, I try that with my airplane and I can rarely find the sweet spot between gaining lift again and nose plopping it down.
 
If foam is ingested by a running engine it generally requires a overhual. If not running a wash would be required.
 
Gear doors were open. Center system Hydraulic issue?
 
Dan Thomas said:
Yet more journalistic ignorance: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nose-gear-failure-caused-767-slam-runway.html

Somehow a blown tire is a Boeing problem...
Click to expand...

They are saying it's not Boeing's fault while insinuating that it is Boeing's fault ... :dunno:

"There is no suggestion Boeing are to blame for the crashes, and the cause of the Senegal crash is not yet known.

But the incidents will only compound woes for the company which is already facing intense scrutiny amid a string of mishaps and controversy over safety concerns - as well as the deaths of two whistleblowers just two months apart."
 
I didn’t know that FedEx planes land in daylight.

As for the landing itself, that seemed so benign.
 
mandm said:
Is that foam or water coming from the trucks? Are the engines affected by the foam? And it’s always nice to see the nose up attitude on landing, I try that with my airplane and I can rarely find the sweet spot between gaining lift again and nose plopping it down.
Click to expand...

First thing I noticed was the trucks flowing foam. I don't know why, no smoke, no fire, and definitely no fuel leaking.
 
asicer said:
That's sooo lazy. Have you considered a professional journalism career? :)
Click to expand...
No I haven't. But it's good to know that if I loose a few more brain cells I'd be more than qualified ... ;)
 
Zeldman said:
Because they don't get to play with the big boy toys very often.??
Click to expand...

I'm also curious to know if that is the old PFAS laden AFFF or the newer friendlier, but less effective, F3 foam.

I see it all the time though in videos of gear up landings, the ARFF guys hosing a non-burning aircraft down with foam. As an 18 year ARFF guy myself, I don't understand why. Rule #1 of ARFF is agent conservation, because resupply on an airfield is difficult.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I see it all the time though in videos of gear up landings, the ARFF guys hosing a non-burning aircraft down with foam.
Click to expand...
Four trucks foaming watering a non-burning aircraft. Must be a liability concern ...

Edit: water used, not foam.
 
Last edited:
Sources are saying it was actually water. I thought it was foam also but apparently not.
Didn’t JetBlue repeatedly ask for foam at LAX and ultimately was told “that’s only in the movies?”
 
Last edited:
Used to be common to foam a runway for anything that might cause sparks on landing.

They eventually realized the foam was a bigger hazard and problem that the perceived risk of allowing sparks, or maybe it wasn’t even really preventing those.

In any case, one day they just stopped. Still have gear up landings, no big fireballs. So it wasn’t just in the movies.
 
I want to know why the pilots went out the window vs the main door. Both seemed to be about the same height above the ground, and the door would be way less awkward. Or wait 5 min for the firefighters to put a ladder up to the door.
 
Groundpounder said:
I want to know why the pilots went out the window vs the main door. Both seemed to be about the same height above the ground, and the door would be way less awkward. Or wait 5 min for the firefighters to put a ladder up to the door.
Click to expand...
No slides on the 767F. Just inertial reels to go out the main door. With the nose gear on the ground, the reels are unusable I’d imagine.

Why they didn’t wait for the ladder, I don’t know. But if you’re going to evacuate, 5 minutes probably feels like a pretty long time to be sitting in the airplane.
 
I don’t know what would be unstable about the inertia reels. They are designed for a controlled emergency descent. There’s no usage limitations that I know of in regards to the angle of the fuselage.
I will say they are a pain to use. There’s only enough room to fit one hand fully into the handle. It’s made to use with a safety diaper that connects to the reel. Problem is it’s difficult to get into the diaper properly when in a hurry. Especially when not standing on a level deck. They probably opted for the sliding window escape ropes to save time and being how close the windows were to the ground it poses less risk vs. normal height.
 
Jdm said:
I don’t know what would be unstable about the inertia reels. They are designed for a controlled emergency descent. There’s no usage limitations that I know of in regards to the angle of the fuselage.
I will say they are a pain to use. There’s only enough room to fit one hand fully into the handle. It’s made to use with a safety diaper that connects to the reel. Problem is it’s difficult to get into the diaper properly when in a hurry. Especially when not standing on a level deck. They probably opted for the sliding window escape ropes to save time and being how close the windows were to the ground it poses less risk vs. normal height.
Click to expand...
I'm not a 767 guy, but my understanding is that the inertial reels are "programmed" to basically free-fall you to within a few feet of the ground, then slow to a safe speed. With the nose gear not down (and the ground 4-5 feet closer), the reels would still be in free-fall mode when you got to ground level and never get to the "slow down" part of travel.

IIRC, this was an issue with another nose gear up landing on the 767. The crews used the inertial reels and it was them basically jumping out the door.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I'm not a 767 guy, but my understanding is that the inertial reels are "programmed" to basically free-fall you to within a few feet of the ground, then slow to a safe speed. With the nose gear not down (and the ground 4-5 feet closer), the reels would still be in free-fall mode when you got to ground level and never get to the "slow down" part of travel.

IIRC, this was an issue with another nose gear up landing on the 767. The crews used the inertial reels and it was them basically jumping out the door.
Click to expand...

I had a couple years flying the 76. Maybe 500 hours total. Not on it anymore. Certainly not something I ever tested myself:) You might be right, but I can’t find any confirmation. The only reference I ran across simply says the reels limit the speed of descent. Nothing about when the resistance actually increases. It does seem reasonable that they would have some small amount of slack built in to make connections and allow easy movement towards the door opening.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I'm not a 767 guy, but my understanding is that the inertial reels are "programmed" to basically free-fall you to within a few feet of the ground, then slow to a safe speed. With the nose gear not down (and the ground 4-5 feet closer), the reels would still be in free-fall mode when you got to ground level and never get to the "slow down" part of travel.

IIRC, this was an issue with another nose gear up landing on the 767. The crews used the inertial reels and it was them basically jumping out the door.
Click to expand...

This is correct according to the training I received on our fleets inertial reels.

We did go over an injury caused by a reel that was too long for the distance, or too close to the ground as you suggest, but I can no longer recall the exact details.
 
Bacho said:
This is correct according to the training I received on our fleets inertial reels.

We did go over an injury caused by a reel that was too long for the distance, or too close to the ground as you suggest, but I can no longer recall the exact details.
Click to expand...

I guess if the choice is a broken leg or burning alive...

In this incident, I probably would have drank my coffee and waited on the responders to get me a ladder.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I guess if the choice is a broken leg or burning alive...

In this incident, I probably would have drank my coffee and waited on the responders to get me a ladder.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I never like second guessing crews reactions, especially when everything works out well. If you watch the video, as they're coming to a stop, there a big cloud of something (probably smoke) that engulfs the nose of the airplane. I bet that smoke smelt like burning... stuff. I won't fault them for wanting to get out quickly and not wait for the firefighters to bring up a ladder.

When I was a SO, we had acrid smoke in the cockpit. We diverted and shut down on the runway. When I popped the door, the firefighters on the ground were telling me that they were bringing a ladder, to just wait a minute or two. I popped the slide and we got out that way. But that was more because I was like "F it... this is probably my only time to go down the slide." lol

1715609434063.png
 
It ain't a Boeing but the gear up landing was as good as it gets:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top