United 767 hits bread truck at EWR

flyingron said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's so crazy. I've seen this happen once in real life. I was a student pilot and someone who sounded very old and who should have hung up his wings took out a landing light and dipped out without acknowledging what had happened. It's hard to imagine something similar with two people on the flight deck who have had a medical a maximum of 12 months previously.
 
If false, then they did an excellent job of lining up the tires and that last frame of truck GoPro.
 
To get pedantic.
And go to genus and epithet (species).
Truck is global (eg. vegetable).
Specifically it was a tractor-trailer. (Which, just as a fruit is a vegetable, is a type of truck.)
The tire (or tyre if you like superfluous "u"s), attached to a wheel, struck the trailer of a tractor-trailer.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Got it. I'm used to seeing it out within hours of the incident, not the next day
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean. LiveATC archives everything it records, and it's always available there as soon as it's recorded. It would be pretty obvious if they removed a recording from the archive to hide something. I assume that no one grabbed it and posted it here just because there's nothing on it.
 
AZEL said:
To get pedantic.
And go to genus and epithet (species).
Truck is global (eg. vegetable).
Specifically it was a tractor-trailer. (Which, just as a fruit is a vegetable, is a type of truck.)
The tire (or tyre if you like superfluous "u"s), attached to a wheel, struck the trailer of a tractor-trailer.
Click to expand...
Well, "fruit" is a botanical term and "vegetable" isn't, so they're actually orthogonal.
 
Bottom line, at the moment it hit the truck, how much higher should the plane have been to be not more than one dot low on the glideslope?
 
dmspilot said:
My back-of-a-napkin math says the crew should have been seeing all red on the PAPI.
Click to expand...
True, but...
1778028424562.png

From the notes for runway 29:
4-light PAPI on right (3.00 degrees glide path)
PAPI UNUSBL 4 DEGS LEFT OF CNTRLN.

Depending on their alignment, I wonder if they didn't even see it for a portion of the approach.
 
AV8R_87 said:
From the notes for runway 29:
4-light PAPI on right (3.00 degrees glide path)
PAPI UNUSBL 4 DEGS LEFT OF CNTRLN.

Depending on their alignment, I wonder if they didn't even see it for a portion of the approach.
Click to expand...
The approach comes from the right side
 
The problem is a 300,000 lb aircraft on a somewhat obstructed 6,700 foot runway. You don't want to be even a schosh high. That leaves "on path" or low.

I once saw a pilot in a C130 make a tactical short field landing. He had ~3600 avaialbe. You have to be pretty darned precise under pressure to make it work. He was at the right energy and 3 our of 4 low. They nailed it.
Look up LRRS Sparrevohn AK. There was no fuel available so he wasn't "light". 4,200 ft, but on that day only 3600 was available.

I am not THAT good.

We once looked at a home in a nearby airpark. Runway was 2000 feet, obstructed. I did a perfect short field approach and landing (PA-34), at 700 undergross and had ~300 feet left. I said "we'll look at the house but I'm not buying". I could have a bad day any day.

These crews don't have much of a choice and when they do the math they are not permitted to count the reversers in the calculation. For all we know a system may have been inop. leaving few options to the crew. So the peanut gallery needs to back off and await the NTSB. We can SAY they should have declined for a longer runway but we don't know their fuel situation either.

Be not in a race to crucify!
 
Kyleb: A bunch of posts got taken down.

There might not be. They might have just had a bad day. Or we might find out the Captain had to requal 4 times before he was put back in service. (Q400 accident captain at Buffalo NY). "We shall See"
 
Last edited:
All the numbers are for landing 1000’ down the runway. “Ducking under” is REALLY bad form.

I’ve taken 767s into LaGuardia on the stadium visual, it’s not that hard. It DOES DEMAND being correct. I preach daily that there isn’t such thing as being conservative in flying, you’ve gotta be RIGHT. Spotting the deck for more runway results in things like this. Flying higher than you should to avoid this puts you off the other end. Gotta fly where you’re supposed to, period.

Fly right, land right, you’ll stop just fine. It takes practice and discipline. They are expected to be that good.

I’m staying firmly in the camp that they weren’t comfortable with this sort of hand flown approach, which would lead directly towards training deficiencies most likely.

Insofar as the PAPI not usable off centerline, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not visible, it could mean it ain’t correct. Same thing at the boat, you could see the ball before it was accurate, knew it, had to take those early looks with a grain of salt. Possible contributor.
 
For some reason, I thought most of the USA airliners had radar altimeters.
1. Is this true, or dated information?
2. If true, are they normally used?

Tim
 
The image above showing the aircraft over the truck and highway is real. It’s a frame taken from a surveillance video that captured the incident. Was on X but can’t seem to copy the link to post here.

The tires/gear hit the light pole which then hit the truck’s windshield. The way the in-truck cab video ends it’s easy to think the truck rolled over, but the camera just got knocked down from its mounting.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
The problem is a 300,000 lb aircraft on a somewhat obstructed 6,700 foot runway. You don't want to be even a schosh high. That leaves "on path" or low.
Click to expand...
No. It leaves "on path." That's your option.

This runway is short, sure, but I'm sure they had data to support a landing there. @Tools posted that their landing data is based on landing 1,000 feet down the runway. The landing data at my company is for touching down 1,500 feet down the runway.

I said above, I've done this approach and landing in a medium-weight 777 and have always been able to get off on W2. Edit: obviously, the brakes on the 777 are different (better?) than the 767, but my point was if their landing data supported a 29 landing, it was based on touching down somewhere on the runway other than "brick one."
1778061750937.png

One thing to remember is that if they are using 29, it's typically because of strong westerly winds which will only help you on landing.

There's no reason to fly low on the PAPIs and try to land short on this or any runway in a transport category aircraft.
bbchien said:
I once saw a pilot in a C130 make a tactical short field landing. He had ~3600 avaialbe. You have to be pretty darned precise under pressure to make it work. He was at the right energy and 3 our of 4 low. They nailed it.
Look up LRRS Sparrevohn AK. There was no fuel available so he wasn't "light". 4,200 ft, but on that day only 3600 was available.

I am not THAT good.

We once looked at a home in a nearby airpark. Runway was 2000 feet, obstructed. I did a perfect short field approach and landing (PA-34), at 700 undergross and had ~300 feet left. I said "we'll look at the house but I'm not buying". I could have a bad day any day.

These crews don't have much of a choice and when they do the math they are not permitted to count the reversers in the calculation. For all we know a system may have been inop. leaving few options to the crew. So the peanut gallery needs to back off and await the NTSB. We can SAY they should have declined for a longer runway but we don't know their fuel situation either.

Be not in a race to crucify!
Click to expand...
 
Here’s a little factoid, ‘some’ pilots get all wrapped up with runway length, thinking they need the ‘1st brick’. The truth is, that 31kt gusty headwind is going to take care of a fair amount of the landing roll. In many instances I’d rather that than the longer runway with the 31 knot gusty 90 degree crosswind.

Along with that, if the aviation angels put you on rwy 29 at EWR, plan on using the brakes as needed. Of course, target speed is higher, with most aircraft, with the gusting.

There was a time I came back, gusting to the low 40’s. Tower offered the longer runway or the shorter one perfectly aligned with the wind. You already know which runway I chose.

I agree, no reason to ‘scrape’ it in, or ride 4 reds. One will have gusts also, keep a little energy to compensate. Of course, bugging out is always an option. BWTHDIK.
 
I can't seem to find it, what were the actual winds reported at the time of the incident? EDIT: I found it here:
theaviationhub.co.uk

2 Days On From The United Airlines 767 Truck Collision in Newark: What We Know So Far - The Aviation Hub

Two days on from the United Airlines 767 truck collision at Newark here is what we know so far on what could have been a more fatal crash.
theaviationhub.co.uk theaviationhub.co.uk

"Meteorological data from Newark (KEWR) at the time of the incident indicated strong, gusty winds from 300–320 degrees, reaching up to 36 knots."
 
As of today we know a couple important things.

1) There have been no reports of any equipment malfunctions

2) They hit a truck
 
tspear said:
For some reason, I thought most of the USA airliners had radar altimeters.
1. Is this true, or dated information?
2. If true, are they normally used?

Tim
Click to expand...

They do. The problem with a stupidly easy to fly jets is the action that got you into trouble happened (relatively) quite a while back.

Unfortunately jet guys see their demise coming and by the time it’s realized there is NOTHING left to fix it. A radar altimeter was there and didn’t save the day.
 
The geometry is interesting.

TCH is 60'. The southbound lane of I-95 is ~630' from the threshold. The PAPI is 3.00°. That puts the center of the PAPI glidepath about 90' above I-95 but that's to the pilot's eye-level.

Subtract the 15'-20' that the gear hang under the pilot's eye-level, add the height of the light pole, and you might be down to 50' (20' pole) to 30' (40' pole) of clearance and that's when you're on the center of the PAPI glidepath.

Depending on the height of the pole, they may have been only 30' to 50' below the center of the PAPI GP. I did not know that the margin was so small.
 
AZEL said:
To get pedantic.
And go to genus and epithet (species).
Truck is global (eg. vegetable).
Specifically it was a tractor-trailer. (Which, just as a fruit is a vegetable, is a type of truck.)
The tire (or tyre if you like superfluous "u"s), attached to a wheel, struck the trailer of a tractor-trailer.
Click to expand...
Um, no, it struck the tractor. It punched a hole in the cab and broke the windshield.
 
Larry in TN said:
The geometry is interesting.

TCH is 60'. The southbound lane of I-95 is ~630' from the threshold. The PAPI is 3.00°. That puts the center of the PAPI glidepath about 90' above I-95 but that's to the pilot's eye-level.

Subtract the 15'-20' that the gear hang under the pilot's eye-level, add the height of the light pole, and you might be down to 50' (20' pole) to 30' (40' pole) of clearance and that's when you're on the center of the PAPI glidepath.

Depending on the height of the pole, they may have been only 30' to 50' below the center of the PAPI GP. I did not know that the margin was so small.
Click to expand...
Just curious, only because my high school geometry fails me, are you calculating the 3% path of the PAPI from its location 1,000 feet from the threshold, 1630 feet from the highway?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Just curious, only because my high school geometry fails me, are you calculating the 3% path of the PAPI from its location 1,000 feet from the threshold, 1630 feet from the highway?
Click to expand...
He's doing it from the PAPI location. 1630' away puts a 3° glide path at 85'
 
flyingron said:
He's doing it from the PAPI location. 1630' away puts a 3° glide path at 85'
Click to expand...

I figured as much, but without doing the math myself. All red on a PAPI or VGSI should be about 2.5% if someone wanted to figure out that math.

Standard runway safety area for a commercial service runway is 1,000 feet from the threshold, so even with a 630 displaced threshold EWR must have a mod to standards to allow that shortened area. That mod may get a second look.

As been stated, 85' pilot eye level at the highway or fence depending on the aircraft can leave the gear as low as 50-60 feet if on glidepath. Clearly there shouldn't be anything on the highway that tall, but doesn't leave a lot of tolerance for error. Honestly amazing this hasn't happened already.

Given the recent spate of accidents and closecalls and the renewed focus on safety, I would not be surprised to see this runway get further displaced.
 
To get even more pedantic, it struck a highway light standard. Which
flyingron said:
... struck the tractor. (And) punched a hole in the cab and broke the windshield.
Click to expand...
Then some of the tires, attached to the wheels, on the left main gear ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
I figured as much, but without doing the math myself. All red on a PAPI or VGSI should be about 2.5% if someone wanted to figure out that math.

Standard runway safety area for a commercial service runway is 1,000 feet from the threshold, so even with a 630 displaced threshold EWR must have a mod to standards to allow that shortened area. That mod may get a second look.

As been stated, 85' pilot eye level at the highway or fence depending on the aircraft can leave the gear as low as 50-60 feet if on glidepath. Clearly there shouldn't be anything on the highway that tall, but doesn't leave a lot of tolerance for error. Honestly amazing this hasn't happened already.

Given the recent spate of accidents and closecalls and the renewed focus on safety, I would not be surprised to see this runway get further displaced.
Click to expand...
After the 1900 Hurricaine, the city of Galveston Texas undertook a monumental "grade-raising" project to protect the city from storm surges. Over 8 years (from 1903 to 1911) 2,000+ buildings were raised 8 to 16 feet by hand-turned jack screws. While on stilts, engineers pumped millions of cubic yards of slurry, dredged from the harbor, into the space beneath. Residents continued living in their elevated homes, using high wooden catwalks to navigate "the city of mud" until the sand dried and new foundations were built. - Just sayin'
 
AZEL said:
After the 1900 Hurricaine, the city of Galveston Texas undertook a monumental "grade-raising" project to protect the city from storm surges. Over 8 years (from 1903 to 1911) 2,000+ buildings were raised 8 to 16 feet by hand-turned jack screws. While on stilts, engineers pumped millions of cubic yards of slurry, dredged from the harbor, into the space beneath. Residents continued living in their elevated homes, high wooden catwalks to navigate "the city of mud" until the sand dried and new foundations were built. - Just sayin'
Click to expand...

That was one alternative mentioned either here or in another forum, drop the interstate into a tunnel and/or elevate the end of the runway over the road similar to Fort Lauderdale 28L/10R. Depends how bad EWR wants to continue operating 11/29.
 
tspear said:
For some reason, I thought most of the USA airliners had radar altimeters.
1. Is this true, or dated information?
2. If true, are they normally used?

Tim
Click to expand...
Yes. They are used to determine Decision Altitude and Alert Height on lower-than-standard ILS minimums. i.e. CAT II and CAT III approaches. They are not helpful at ~100' on a visual landing.

They are also used to provide input to GPWS, TCAS, and other aircraft systems.

midwestpa24 said:
Just curious, only because my high school geometry fails me, are you calculating the 3% path of the PAPI from its location 1,000 feet from the threshold, 1630 feet from the highway?
Click to expand...

I calculated backwards from the 60' TCH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top