United 767 hits bread truck at EWR

UA169 - seems the collision with the light pole caused a wheel to come off and that's what hit the truck.
Looks like the main gear hit the truck, not a loose wheel.
 
Last edited:
It was quite breezy and gusty this afternoon where I am, 37 miles north of EWR.
 
~700 feet from the turnpike to the end of the displaced threshold, so I'm guessing that the plane is slightly low.
"A New Jersey State Police spokesman said late Sunday that a tire on the airliner and the underside of the plane collided with a pole and a tractor-trailer. The pole then struck a Jeep on the Turnpike, near interchange 14."
1777891107796.png
 
Last edited:
Using the PAPI location, angle (3°), and resulting distance to the farthest (2100’) and nearest (1650’) lanes of the turnpike, on a nominal 2-white, 2-red glidepath, the eye height should have been 110’ above the TDZE at the farthest lanes from the runway, and 86’ at the nearest lanes, assuming they’re in the same plane.

Anybody know the eye-to-wheel height on a 767-400 configured and pitched for approach? I’m guessing it’s over 20’. Also reduce the height of the truck and the margins become really thin.
 
I would think it would be a lot more than 20ft. Per ChatGPT and Copilot (both agree), the height above ground for the windows in a 747-400 is 26-30ft above the ground.
Add in the additional vertical height caused by the plane flying at some positive angle of attack....

Assume a distance of roughly 85ft horizontally (per AI chats again, this is the estimated mid point of the wing box, where the gear is located), a 2 degree deck angle raises the cockpit an extra three feet. 4 degrees raises if 5.9 feet, 6 degrees 8.9 feet, and 8 degrees a whopping 12dt.

Per both AI chats, the deck angle can reach as high as 8 degrees in flare in the 747-400. Note AOA is higher, it is 2-4 degrees higher depending on the flap level selected.

BWTHDIK?

Tim
 
GPS spoofing? Might it be possible to switch on GPS spoofing in the area of approach path, at last seconds of flight, and aircraft transitions to new position with slightly modified glide slope without crew noticing the slight deviation due to task demand. If clearances are very "thin" as noted in post #32, could this be enough deviation to result in this unfortunate situation?
 
tspear said:
I would think it would be a lot more than 20ft. Per ChatGPT and Copilot (both agree), the height above ground for the windows in a 747-400 is 26-30ft above the ground.
Add in the additional vertical height caused by the plane flying at some positive angle of attack....

Assume a distance of roughly 85ft horizontally (per AI chats again, this is the estimated mid point of the wing box, where the gear is located), a 2 degree deck angle raises the cockpit an extra three feet. 4 degrees raises if 5.9 feet, 6 degrees 8.9 feet, and 8 degrees a whopping 12dt.

Per both AI chats, the deck angle can reach as high as 8 degrees in flare in the 747-400. Note AOA is higher, it is 2-4 degrees higher depending on the flap level selected.

BWTHDIK?

Tim
Click to expand...

It was a 767-400. Not a 747.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Do the UA 767s have LPV/RNP capability?
Click to expand...
Very few airliners have LPV, and certainly not a old 767. but they do have RNP. Runway 29 does not have an approach with LPV minimums. They were not flying the RNP approach, though. It was the RNAV (GPS) W Rwy 29.

Published minimums are an MDA 880' which would equate to a DDA of 930' and a required autopilot disengagement by 880', at which time they would be on a heading of about 220deg, starting their turn toward final at 288deg.

There is no glideslope, of course, but the vertical path would have a TCH of 60'. Runway 29 has an LDA of 6,501' beyond the threshold which is not much for a ~300,000 pound airplane.
 
Larry in TN said:
There is no glideslope, of course, but the vertical path would have a TCH of 60'. Runway 29 has an LDA of 6,501' beyond the threshold which is not much for a ~300,000 pound airplane.
Click to expand...
I wondered how much of this incident can be attributed to the pilot's mindset of "put it on the numbers".
 
Flying Keys said:
Using the PAPI location, angle (3°), and resulting distance to the farthest (2100’) and nearest (1650’) lanes of the turnpike, on a nominal 2-white, 2-red glidepath, the eye height should have been 110’ above the TDZE at the farthest lanes from the runway, and 86’ at the nearest lanes, assuming they’re in the same plane.

Anybody know the eye-to-wheel height on a 767-400 configured and pitched for approach? I’m guessing it’s over 20’. Also reduce the height of the truck and the margins become really thin.
Click to expand...

wsquare said:
GPS spoofing? Might it be possible to switch on GPS spoofing in the area of approach path, at last seconds of flight, and aircraft transitions to new position with slightly modified glide slope without crew noticing the slight deviation due to task demand. If clearances are very "thin" as noted in post #32, could this be enough deviation to result in this unfortunate situation?
Click to expand...
They are visual at that point.
 
DJTorrente said:
I wondered how much of this incident can be attributed to the pilot's mindset of "put it on the numbers".
Click to expand...
Having been through the same training as those pilots, I can say that there was no mindset to "put it on the numbers". The training is to touchdown on, or shortly after, the fixed-distance markers.

Take a look at the plate for the approach they were flying, the RNAV (GPS) W Rwy 29, and compare the ground tracks to the plates for the RNAV (RNP) Y Rwy 29 and Stadium Visual Rwy 29. The W, which is a relatively new procedure, moved the ground track closer to the airport resulting in a shorter Final. I don't think I've flown the W yet. I don't know why they made this change as the Final segment was already short enough on the other two procedures. You only fly these procedures when it is very windy with turbulence and up/down drafts. You'll have a target speed in the area of 160kias. (My record is 165kias for the Stadium Visual).
 
Simple hand flying skills? Taught to mediocre mins in the sim, practically useless in practice.

The pilots familiarity with THIS approach will be telling.
 
DJTorrente said:
I wondered how much of this incident can be attributed to the pilot's mindset of "put it on the numbers".
Click to expand...
I've never flown with anyone in 121 that tried to put it on the numbers, but I have gotten emails from the safety department telling us not to do that, implying there are more than zero people that have tried it (this is at a regional, not UAL). UAL pilots should be better trained and more experienced, however they are 2,000% bigger than my regional so ... statistics do what they do.

The resulting investigation should certainly be interesting.
 
Last edited:
I always make the point on 6kish ft runways to tell my FOs you do shorter every day with minimal braking at the fortress hub. Dont do anything different. Ive flown the visual 29 in fully loaded 737s no problem. 767 was typically slower approach speeds. People get in their heads on short pavement for some reason.
 
Winds at the time look pretty much straight down the runway, and not particularly strong - 8G23 was the most reported about that time. I was on an AS flight in March that did this approach in something like 25G40. That was a rather sporty approach and landing.

Then again, I saw a 172 nearly hit the fence landing at KFUL last week, and landed well short of the DT.
 
I was flying about the same time Sunday, about 100 miles north, in a way smaller aircraft. Winds were west, reported as 10G25, but really they were something like 0G25 from how it felt on the ground. The low end dropped down to nothing. That's just my observation, I have no proof.
 
Pilots Of America Management said:
Several posts unrelated to the subject mishap have been deleted. At this point no warnings have been given. Please respect those that are trying to have a serious discussion regarding the accident.
Click to expand...

You guys are being very inconsistent about this.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Winds at the time look pretty much straight down the runway, and not particularly strong - 8G23 was the most reported about that time. I was on an AS flight in March that did this approach in something like 25G40. That was a rather sporty approach and landing.

Then again, I saw a 172 nearly hit the fence landing at KFUL last week, and landed well short of the DT.
Click to expand...
I really don't like landing on 29 and I am willing to bet the actual winds were much stronger. EWR always seems to under report the winds or maybe it just feels like it.
 
Half Fast said:
You guys are being very inconsistent about this.
Click to expand...
at first I disagreed with you but now they deleted my VERY relevant post about blancolirio's video being posted so yeah, now it makes no sense at all. not sure where the sudden outburst of over-modding is coming from but apparently someone is butthurt.
 
Weird, still no Live ATC recording. I wonder what they are hiding?
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Weird, still no Live ATC recording. I wonder what they are hiding?
Click to expand...
It's likely unremarkable. Neither the UA pilots nor ATC seemed to have noticed the mishap when it occurred. Makes for boring youtube video creation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top