United 777 loses a wheel on takeoff from SFO

[y_p_w]

This has some more details including video showing how the wheel likely bounced. Looks like it hit the top of a barrier, bent over a chain-link fence, hit the car, then kept on going. There's also a still of people posing around wheel where it landed, which was at the Hertz rental car prep area.

 

[edyvw]

Lesson to everybody to not use Michelins

Dry rot!

 

[JimPghPA]

I would think that reducing the weight by using up the fuel would be a large incentive to continue the flight because who wants to land a heavy aircraft with a wheel problem. Anybody in their right mind would rather land one that is low on fuel if they have to land with a bad wheel. It just makes sense that the remaining wheels for the front would have less stress on it if the overall weight of the aircraft was less.

And I don't think anyone wants to do a fuel dump.

I can see for liability reasons that they would want to do a drastic inspection of the remaining Wheels on the front and probably just pull the hole Carriage of all of them and put in a new set and then do a drastic inspection of that whole carriage before using any parts of it again. And of course if they're going to do that kind of a job they might want to divert to someplace capable of doing it. But still one of the questions would be what would be the appropriate Landing weight in those conditions? I'm sure the fronts have extra capacity that can handle loss of a wheel but still even with all the tires working properly it's not generally preferred to land when it's heavy.

 

[LazyDog]

Does seem like air plane incident last 2-3 years have really gone up.

 

[4WD]

Does seem like air plane incident last 2-3 years have really gone up.

Turns out it was just the donut spare

 

[Malo83]

Quality control, hope somebody didn't sign off without inspecting the work.

 

[john_pifer]

Quality control, hope somebody didn't sign off without inspecting the work.

If it was a line maintenance boo-boo, there wouldn’t be a second set of eyes verifying the work.

Typically that’s for hangar maintenance stuff.

I don’t know United’s maintenance program, though.

 

[Astro14]

If a $5000 car has TPMS sensors, I'm sure a multi-million dollar plane has them too. Except the $20 sensor for the car probably costs $500 for the plane.

You are sure of so much that simply is not true.

No, there are no TPMS sensors in an aircraft wheel and tire. There are brake temperature sensors, but they aren't in the wheel - so on the landing gear synoptic display, there would be completely normal indications.

There would be no cockpit indication of this.

Why not go to Japan?

Because it was not clear what other damage to the landing gear might exist.

Better to have the airplane land at the nearest airport with sufficient runway, maintenance, and the ability to accommodate passengers on another flight, than to press on across the Pacific, and have a problem a thousand miles from an airport like Midway necessitating a landing without maintenance, or accommodation, and strand everyone there.

As far as the decision to divert the plane to LAX? So many factors to consider - including distance/flight time, runway length, weather, spare aircraft, rebooking options, and others that I can only speculate, but the decision was carefully considered to account for all of those things.

 

[wpod]

Does seem like air plane incident last 2-3 years have really gone up.

There is the same amount of incidents, but they are now using Mertic as the way the incidents are being counted..

 

[Astro14]

I would think that reducing the weight by using up the fuel would be a large incentive to continue the flight because who wants to land a heavy aircraft with a wheel problem. Anybody in their right mind would rather land one that is low on fuel if they have to land with a bad wheel. It just makes sense that the remaining wheels for the front would have less stress on it if the overall weight of the aircraft was less.

And I don't think anyone wants to do a fuel dump.

I can see for liability reasons that they would want to do a drastic inspection of the remaining Wheels on the front and probably just pull the hole Carriage of all of them and put in a new set and then do a drastic inspection of that whole carriage before using any parts of it again. And of course if they're going to do that kind of a job they might want to divert to someplace capable of doing it. But still one of the questions would be what would be the appropriate Landing weight in those conditions? I'm sure the fronts have extra capacity that can handle loss of a wheel but still even with all the tires working properly it's not generally preferred to land when it's heavy.

One doesn’t take an airplane with potential damage across the largest ocean in the world. That is not prudent. You have the benefit of knowing that there was no other damage to the airplane from hindsight after it landed.

The crew, and United, did not have that luxury while it was in flight.

So, yeah, they jettisoned fuel on their way into LAX to reduce weight, and took the airplane to the safest, best option.

 

[atikovi]

No, there are no TPMS sensors in an aircraft wheel and tire. There are brake temperature sensors, but they aren't in the wheel - so on the landing gear synoptic display, there would be completely normal indications.

The page OP linked to says otherwise.

Tire Pressure and Brake Temperature Systems | Crane Aerospace & Electronics

Crane A&E provides integrated tire pressure monitoring systems and sensors for commercial aircraft.

www.craneae.com

Integrated, Onboard Systems​

Crane provides integrated tire pressure monitoring systems for a number of large commercial aircraft. These systems – which can include highly-accurate brake temperature monitoring – provide continuous, accurate cockpit display of tire pressure and brake temperature, which can minimize dispatch delays and reduce the time and cost of ground maintenance activities.

 

[WylieCoyote]

Maybe somebody on board is responsible.

 

[k1xv]

Losing one wheel out of twelve is not too bad.

Years ago, when the first Lockheed C5 was delivered to the Air Force, a congressman, Mendel Rivers, was there for the touch down on the runway. One or two wheels came off and rolled down the runway. Rivers, a big advocate of defense spending, remarked, "That is why it has so many wheels".

 

[Astro14]

The page OP linked to says otherwise.

Tire Pressure and Brake Temperature Systems | Crane Aerospace & Electronics

Crane A&E provides integrated tire pressure monitoring systems and sensors for commercial aircraft.

www.craneae.com

Integrated, Onboard Systems​

Crane provides integrated tire pressure monitoring systems for a number of large commercial aircraft. These systems – which can include highly-accurate brake temperature monitoring – provide continuous, accurate cockpit display of tire pressure and brake temperature, which can minimize dispatch delays and reduce the time and cost of ground maintenance activities.

View attachment 207267

I see, and how many Boeing type ratings do you have?

Just because the part is made, does not mean that part or system was installed in this aircraft.

 

[atikovi]

Just because the part is made, does not mean that part or system was installed in this aircraft.

TPMS sensors on vehicles flying in the air and carrying hundreds of people should be mandatory if it isn't already. If the government can make automakers install them in cars, they can certainly make plane manufacturers do the same. You don't need to be a pilot to understand that.

 

[Astro14]

TPMS sensors on vehicles flying in the air and carrying hundreds of people should be mandatory if it isn't already. If the government can make automakers install them in cars, they can certainly make plane manufacturers do the same. You don't need to be a pilot to understand that.

Actually, you do need to be a pilot to understand that.

Pilots understand, rigorous maintenance, done to high standards. Pilots understand frequent inspections.

Airplanes like this are inspected every single flight, tire pressures are checked for every flight. So, if your car was inspected to the degree that airplanes are, you would not need TPMS, either.

I cannot help but laugh at the irony here….

Your maintenance practices, and standards of work, in flipping cars for profit, are questionable at best.

You buy junkyard used exhaust systems for those high mileage flippers, advocate for “good enough“ maintenance, and brag about the use of unapproved fluids in transmissions.

So, you're in no position to suggest what airliners should, or should not, have for maintenance or systems.

 

[y_p_w]

I see, and how many Boeing type ratings do you have?

Just because the part is made, does not mean that part or system was installed in this aircraft.

To be fair, I think the question was about why it’s not done, or if it is, why it wasn't installed. My reading is that this plane is over 20 years old, so it might not have the latest and greatest equipment.

 

[Astro14]

To be fair, I think the question was about why it’s not done, or if it is, why it wasn't installed. My reading is that this plane is over 20 years old, so it might not have the latest and greatest equipment.

To be fair, I think he’s trolling.

He was claiming the aircraft in question had a system that it did not.

Then, when I called him on his false statement, he wanted to argue. I reckon that’s trolling, arguing for arguments sake.

Look, tire pressure monitoring systems were mandated because of people that owned Ford explorers, never checked the tires, had blowouts, and got killed in the rollover.

The problem with adding a new system to an airplane, is that it is expensive, and if the system does not work, then the airplane does not go.

There’s plenty of monitoring, testing, and inspection done on aircraft parts as it is. I don’t see the value of tire pressure monitoring in an airliner, when the pressures are checked every flight.

 

[atikovi]

Airplanes like this are inspected every single flight, tire pressures are checked for every flight. So, if your car was inspected to the degree that airplanes are, you would not need TPMS, either.

Yet planes still crash. Not trolling but stating a fact. The best and most frequent inspections don't guaranty a trouble free flight.

I don’t see the value of tire pressure monitoring in an airliner, when the pressures are checked every flight.

By that argument, why have a fuel gauge onboard when you the check the fuel level before takeoff and know the consumption rate?

 

[y_p_w]

To be fair, I think he’s trolling.

He was claiming the aircraft in question had a system that it did not.

Then, when I called him on his false statement, he wanted to argue. I reckon that’s trolling, arguing for arguments sake.

Look, tire pressure monitoring systems were mandated because of people that owned Ford explorers, never checked the tires, had blowouts, and got killed in the rollover.

The problem with adding a new system to an airplane, is that it is expensive, and if the system does not work, then the airplane does not go.

There’s plenty of monitoring, testing, and inspection done on aircraft parts as it is. I don’t see the value of tire pressure monitoring in an airliner, when the pressures are checked every flight.

Still, such systems are available. I suppose the theoretical advantage would be the pilots would get a warning and perhaps do a flyby with the landing gear down. The ATC chatter for this flight included one pilot claiming that he didn’t see any kind of system warning.

But of course you’re right that it might just add to false alarms. I’ve dealt with an automotive TPMS that is always giving false reports and isn’t worth fixing when it’s easy enough to use a tire pressure gauge.