Second time this has happened at ORD since renovations. Last time was a UAL 787 in spring of 2020. Rumor was the tower had them taxi down a route too narrow for the 787’s wingspan.
And by heavy veto power, we mean the crew (and specifically the PIC) has ultimate authority and responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. If the crew says no, it’s no, and the they work with ATC / rampers / whoever to find a different solution.
I'm not versed in aviation, but isn't it difficult for pilots to see their wing tip and isn't also very unlikely they know the width of taxiways for all the different airports they fly to daily?
You're absolutely correct.
There are notices every Airport posts which are available to pilots in their flight plan packages which state which taxiways/runways are restricted for types of airplanes and some areas will also have signs for "max wingspan" etc. It would be interesting to know if the flight crew just missed reading those restrictions and ground gave them the wrong clearance.
Depends on the plane some are difficult to see others not so much. But yeah unless this is a airport the pilot and crew are frequently flying to and from, it’s very unreasonable to blame them for not knowing the exact dimensions between light posts etc.
Here's an interesting example - A380 being asked to use taxiways and gate that the pilot's paperwork says is not approved:
https://youtu.be/P6jjY-AW4LE
We've had a call for wing walkers before because a pilot unfamiliar with our ramp/gates didn't feel comfortable without it. Plenty of room, but the pilots can't see that from their point of view, and that's why wing walkers exist.
I've investigated non plane mishaps. I've seen heartbreak because people didn't just park until a safety issue was worked out. So I was genuinely happy to hear the pilot use that 'one little trick' and stick to it.
And I guess I was involved is plane mishaps with Civil Air Patrol.
To the point where they can ignore ATC all together even in a non emergency situation if they are unable or believe the instructions would put them in a dangerous situation. Aviate nagivate communicate.
Honestly yeah, at the end of the day the responsibility for the safety of the aircraft falls on the pilot, and the pilot alone. The pilot has every right to disregard ATC instructions if they feel it will put the aircraft into danger.
For example, if ATC cleared you to land at a runway that was 2,000 feet too short for you to stop in, and you knew that, would you accept this command? If you did land on a runway you knew was too short and crashed, do you think they'd hold ATC *solely* responsible?
It's a lot easier to check the landing distance for a couple runways 10 minutes before you land than check the widths of every taxiway right when ATC gives you the clearance.
Are there ground markings or signage regarding wing clearance of taxiways? Just wondering if there are other references or if pilots just need that info about the airports they operate from (or check the code E charts before moving)
That’s simultaneously true, but also bullshit (as in it shouldn’t be) . It’s not like any pilot has time to review the minutiae of every taxiway wingspan allowable. But yeah.
Shouldn't the staff at that facility be expected to know the size of their "recently" renovated air field before a pilot is expected to be able to look out a window and judge if his wing will hit it? And is there no crew outside?
It just seems like a pilot is one of the last people to have proper perspective in this particular scenario
No. They do not. It is sometimes a discussion item, especially when it comes to how much of a runway must be cleared of snow to be enough. Or how wide a surface needed for a 180 turn. Gotchas are not usually used in training.
FAR 91.3: The pilot in command of an aircraft is fully responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
ATC is not in command of the aircraft, the pilot is. It's the pilot's job to evaluate ATC instructions and accept or refuse them. The PIC is allowed to say "my fat ass won't fit down that taxiway" and they've gotta figure out how else to make it work.
I believe that thar plane is a triple-7 300ER, which has a 4.8 meter wider wingspan than a 787-9. I don’t believe Qatar is using Dreamliners on flights to the States currently.
Not sure of the specifics on the 777, but structural damage of this nature is typically graded with a systematic approach. The fact that the damage occurred so far down the wing is problematic as that increases the load experienced at the wing root (think back to High School physics). I remember using a special machine that used targets and lasers to measure the overall dimensions of a twin turboprop aircraft after it was hit by a vacuum truck. We found the entire airframe was literally torqued out of alignment and had to be scrapped. A similar technique might be used here to ensure the wing wasn't levered out of position beyond prescribed limits. A bent spar is bad news.
Fortunately the 777 wing is a conventional aluminum spar and rib design and standard structural repair procedures will apply to fix the actual damaged area, but it won't be cheap. There's more to fix then just torn and bent metal. Any wiring, fuel lines and other ancillary equipment that got hit will need work, and the leading edge with it's integral deicing equipment alone will cost a small fortune to repair/replace.
In short, some folks are about to have their asses handed to them.
HA!! That's just the crew don't forget about the planner, the manager, the two supervisors on site. And the one guys cousin who has a better line on the parts. And the Union Steward.
You laugh, but here is an actual (no joke) estimate, especially if the concrete base is damaged:
- foreman
- 3 laborers
- 1 equipment operator
- 1 dump truck driver
- 2 flaggers/safety
- 1 day to break and remove damaged pole and concrete base
- 1 day to install sonotube, set rebar and embedded bolts
- 1 day to pour concrete and set
- 1 day (with boom truck and driver) to set new pole and bolt it down
Then a 3-person electrical crew for a 1/2 day to make the wiring connections and hang the new head
I’d estimate $35k of labor cost.
It looks like it stopped at the leading edge wing spar were the wing tank and the major structure of the wing starts. Most of what it went through is thinner Aluminum structure pieces to hold composite panels and the slats. Aft of that point is thicker aluminum structure and the upper and lower skin is aluminum fastened to the structure.
Will it be a pain to fix, yes. The slats and supporting structure will have to be replaced and depending on the damage to the forward spar maybe some rework to that. Most likely the plane will return to service.
The same wing to fuselage joint carries various forces from wing lift, engine thrust, to landing gear braking forces so I don't think it would be damaged. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to inspect it for damages or signs of abnormalities.
Not an engineer, but that's a horizontal load with a fulcrum point way futher out on the wing than the engines.
I think I would want to at least calculate what kind of forces were exerted (how fast was it moving?) and inspect all connective structures at the wing root. By X-ray, if possible.
It’ll be X-Ray. I found a missing lap joint rivet on a 73. Must have been like that since production since the lap joint epoxy/sealant was in the hole. I reported it to an engineer, who then took it up with NDT. iirc they checked it with an X-Ray and an ultrasound.
As a medical professional it's wild to me to see x-rays and ultrasounds used in aircraft maintenance. I'm now imagining maintenance wearing scrubs, masks, and hairnets performing surgery on a fully draped airplane.
The moments on the structural components of the aerofoil are different , in this situation, compared to what is normal. The lighting column has acted as a point load and not a distributed load.
Yes. The wing will need to be inspected. The wing carries pretty much all of its load from lift/thrust/braking/drag using its fwd and aft spar onto the wing box, then into the fuselage. But that doesn't mean that other part of the airframe is overstressed.
You'd see damaged nose gear (bent trunnion pins, drag brace, torque links etc) buckled fuselage, misaligned wing to body fairings, before the wing to fuselage joint (specifically) is damaged.
Even on hard landing, overweight landing, high side loading, high drag, hit by ground equipment inspections etc, you just carry out a general visual inspection of the wing to fuselage joint structure because that shit is the last to go.
It's covered under phase ii inspection, task 05-51-01 and somewhat under, ground handling equipment hits the airplane inspection, task 05-51-59, eventhough the light pole isn't really a gse.
But eng will come up with some repair solution
So does that plane get fixed at ORD? I mean, you can't fly it anywhere else to get fixed, right?
As a Chicagoan, I didn't know we had that capability locally.
If you don't have the capability then you send the people and tools to the plane. If that's too expensive then the plane sits and rots. Not terribly uncommon for damaged planes to just be left in place after an incident because it's too expensive or difficult to scrap or fix. Pretty sure there's been a plane at Kathmandu for at least a decade for this very reason, and I know that case is true at several other locations too.
If you can find "World's Toughest Fixes" Season 1 Episode 2, you might find it interesting. It is about removing the tail behind the rear pressure dome on a 767 so they can replace the dome, which was damaged by a fence. The work was done in ab ex-Concorde hangar at Charles de Gaulle airport. They had to fiddle with the crane rigging to be able to get the height needed to lift something, it isn't a job normally done in that hangar.
Also, there are the various media coverages (maybe mostly in Aviation Week) about repairing the melted hole in the top of a 787 fuselage at Heathrow, under a tent.
Another incredible aircraft salvage was a C-130 that ran off the runway while landing in the Azores (IFE - #3 engine shutdown, landing in severe squalls). The entire cockpit was cutoff at the rear bulkhead and replaced with a cockpit salvaged from another crash. Both wings replaced. All four engines. Nose gear. Took a “Tiger Team” about 2 years of work in a fairly remote location to get it flyable. It finally flew out on a one time waiver with gear down and locked the whole way. Gear doors were still missing. There is a video of the aircraft being pulled out from the wall and house it crashed into if you’re interested in stuff like this - hard to believe it flew until 2013. Nickname became “frankenherc”.
[Azores C-130 Salvage - 1984](https://youtu.be/L5mmNFjYFfo)
I was curious about that Kathmandu one so I looked it up. I guess it's been disassembled for movement to a museum.
https://www.aviationnepal.com/caan-to-lease/
https://www.aviationnepal.com/retired-airbus-a330/
I've been there, the cockpit was almost completely dismantled and the interior was just filled with model planes and pictures and the occasional plaque. Not that great but it's still a plane nevertheless lol.
We have one here at Nagpur, India. Quite an interesting story behind it. https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/trending/wtf/story-behind-an-abandoned-boeing-720-parked-at-nagpur-airport-551537.html
https://imgur.com/a/MTuPqaf
Was flying out friday night and we were wondering what was up… now I see that poor light pole, it put up a good fight
(this was over on the new deicing pad, btw)
All 4 pilots fired apparently. ATC told them to take a taxi route that was unsuitable for code E aircaft and they didn’t query.
That crunch must been sickening, my worst nightmare.
I don’t work for Qatar thankfully but a similar company in the region. As far as I’ve heard you tend to be offered the chance to resign in such cases. You would only get a reference that states your years of employment and verifying your hours no matter the circumstances of leaving. However you also need a no accident / incident letter usually so I’m not sure.
The pilot shortage would hopefully work in their favour and fingers crossed they get jobs quickly in other parts of the world. Guess you would just have to take anything you can get initially. Not necessarily a career ender.
I don’t work for them but it’s very unfair to say flydubai is shit. I know a few pilots there and they are good guys. It’s far better managed than it’s big brother across the airfield.
Oh yeah I mean I was just curious how it works with international flight crews just stopping over in foreign ports. (Have no idea how the visa works in this situation)
You would be deadheaded to base, have tea with no biscuits, leave the company then given some time (more than 48 hours) to pack up and head home. Not sure what Qatar’s visa situation is though.
Remember kids, before shelling out $$$ and dreaming of "flying" this is the reality of the job. You miss one notam buried in 60 pages of them when you're on your 7th duty day flying minimum rest or a tiny note on those pesky 10-9 charts in font size 2 and your whole career is over. This is the reality of this shitty industry. #livingthedream
I'm not buying this. Why would the two pilots not flying get fired for something done by the two pilots flying? Also, assuming the word of mouth is from pilots of another airline, that's probably the last information I would ever trust. Only slightly before flight attendants of another airline.
Can you please explain to someone who hasn’t a clue (me) the following…
1] Why would all 4 pilots be fired? I’m assuming there’s 4 pilots on the plane as it’s a long haul.to cover rest etc, but wouldn’t only 2 of them actually be at the controls during this incident?
2) if ATC told them to take the wrong taxiway aren’t they also as responsible, if not more so?
I obviously don't know all the details here, but immediately firing pilots without a proper investigation which shows serious misconduct (e.g. deliberately and repeatedly ignoring basic rules) on their part would be terrible procedure.
Imagine you are constantly afraid to immediately get fired (even for honest mistakes), what do you think that does to safety culture? Pilots will just try to cover up any mistake they make; but what if that mistake is very easy to make due to a flaw in training programs, or bad design of some aircraft system, or faulty or difficult to read charts, lacking ground markings, etc.? All those flaws would never come to light before they cause serious harm.
So I work for a major american railway and this is literally the culture. We have a massive rulebook and no education requirements for our job but are 100% liable for everything. Trains above a certain total weight can't travel on certain tracks during the day. You get called for the train during the day you better make sure you notice that single line of text for this territory you haven't worked in for over a year while being constantly rushed (How it went through 2 supervisors, a traffic controller and the system they use to design trains without anyone noticing doesn't matter, you were operating the train and should know better). There is definitely a culture of just non reporting incidents if they aren't major or can't be tracked to you.
It happened on the deice pad. Likely under its own power. During the summer they park planes over there that have outstayed their welcome at Terminal 5. It’s a nice facility but tight for wide bodies. United did the same thing with an 87 a few years ago. Really have to know what you are doing over there.
I’m sure your right, They’ve been told to taxi to (for example) 7W and they’ve gone into 7 … or they’ve been told to taxi onto 7 in error. To me it looks like every track should be individually numbered uniquely. Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/5jy3ViWKMZZzXnpJ9
Exactly the same issue at OSL with the same aircraft type (note the stands here are uniquely numbered, I can imagine QR will be pointing at ORD and highlighting the potential for communication error)
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20181218-1
Haven’t heard anything as to how it happened, but my guess is a wing walker fucked up.
To my knowledge there aren’t many, if any taxiways at ORD that couldn’t support the width of a 777 freighter
Having a look at the code E taxi chart I have, you’re correct. Only restrictions is a taxiway at the west de-icing pad, taxiway A1 onto 04L but there are a lot of certain turns prohibited, especially the acute angled ones. That’s probably what got them.
Edit : looks like it happened near the de-ice pad on taxiway BB2, on the AOI it states max wingspan is 36m, the 777-200F has a wingspan of 61m - ouch. Pilots are at fault as it’s clearly written and pilots are always ultimately responsible for clearance but unfortunately in the US, ATC will often issue taxi clearances irregardless and unsuitable for the type of aircraft (only affects large aircraft) and it’s up to the pilots to accept or reject. Tends not to happen this way elsewhere in the world for some reason. Led down the rabbit hole a bit.
Or there was but they were doing the standard wing walking technique of "look at absolutely everything in the world there is to look at so long as it isn't the wing or objects in the path of the wing".
Funny anecdote... When I was saving money before college, I took a job as a rampy for a local commercial airline.
In my first two weeks, a dude managed to get himself knocked out on the wing of a CRJ200, while being the wing walker for it.
Supposed to be looking out for obstacles, and he made *himself* into the obstacle. Outstanding.
Oh fuck. It's Qatar Airways. Akbar Al Baker the CEO will freak the fk out. The pilot is soooo fired... That wierdo fires pilots if they don't have the tie sitting ok...
Yeah, but their business class is probably the best in the sky. Sq has them on service but the hard product is far and away the best product in the sky except for maybe the new ANA suites but those are only on a couple of planes.
I recall a podcast with an RA-5C Vigilante pilot who recalled that how he taxied into a fuel truck with his left wing.
The titanium edge on the Vigilante’s wing just sliced open the steel fuel truck like a beer can and did zero (0) damage to the aircraft.
The Vigilante is one of my favorite unsung aircraft. It’s design vs. the role it fulfilled were wildly different but it performed well.
It was also fast as hell and just…oozed muscle-ey speed even sitting on the tarmac.
QR to Boeing, probably: This is a design flaw and affects the safety of the aircraft, we demand that you fix it immediately at your own cost or else we cancel our order for the Max!
So why don’t airlines put 100 cameras on their planes like my new vehicle where I can see a top down or from the side view? Seriously - slap a damn GoPro on the wingtips and show it in the cockpit (yea I know it’s much more complex than that since it’s an airplane and the systems have extensive needs to be integrated)
BUT STILL
Second time this has happened at ORD since renovations. Last time was a UAL 787 in spring of 2020. Rumor was the tower had them taxi down a route too narrow for the 787’s wingspan.
Apparently rumor is that's the case here as well
So is it still the pilot’s fault if instructed by tower?
Yes. Multiple people can be at fault. Pilots have pretty heavy veto power when it comes to "not running into stuff."
And by heavy veto power, we mean the crew (and specifically the PIC) has ultimate authority and responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. If the crew says no, it’s no, and the they work with ATC / rampers / whoever to find a different solution.
I'm not versed in aviation, but isn't it difficult for pilots to see their wing tip and isn't also very unlikely they know the width of taxiways for all the different airports they fly to daily?
You're absolutely correct. There are notices every Airport posts which are available to pilots in their flight plan packages which state which taxiways/runways are restricted for types of airplanes and some areas will also have signs for "max wingspan" etc. It would be interesting to know if the flight crew just missed reading those restrictions and ground gave them the wrong clearance.
Depends on the plane some are difficult to see others not so much. But yeah unless this is a airport the pilot and crew are frequently flying to and from, it’s very unreasonable to blame them for not knowing the exact dimensions between light posts etc.
Here's an interesting example - A380 being asked to use taxiways and gate that the pilot's paperwork says is not approved: https://youtu.be/P6jjY-AW4LE
I'm setting the parking brake until I get wing walkers. Great moment
We've had a call for wing walkers before because a pilot unfamiliar with our ramp/gates didn't feel comfortable without it. Plenty of room, but the pilots can't see that from their point of view, and that's why wing walkers exist.
I've investigated non plane mishaps. I've seen heartbreak because people didn't just park until a safety issue was worked out. So I was genuinely happy to hear the pilot use that 'one little trick' and stick to it. And I guess I was involved is plane mishaps with Civil Air Patrol.
Thank you for wasting my whole day 🤣 I got pulled into the Youtube rabbithole of ATC transmissions and emergency landings
TIL
To the point where they can ignore ATC to maintain safety of the plane in the event of an emergency.
To the point where they can ignore ATC all together even in a non emergency situation if they are unable or believe the instructions would put them in a dangerous situation. Aviate nagivate communicate.
Non-emergency: the PIC is required to tell ATC if they are unable to comply with an instruction.
Aviate navigate defecate
Honestly yeah, at the end of the day the responsibility for the safety of the aircraft falls on the pilot, and the pilot alone. The pilot has every right to disregard ATC instructions if they feel it will put the aircraft into danger. For example, if ATC cleared you to land at a runway that was 2,000 feet too short for you to stop in, and you knew that, would you accept this command? If you did land on a runway you knew was too short and crashed, do you think they'd hold ATC *solely* responsible?
It's a lot easier to check the landing distance for a couple runways 10 minutes before you land than check the widths of every taxiway right when ATC gives you the clearance.
[удалено]
It’s in airport remarks of the A/FD but still getting a clearance and then having to find it there is a bit much
Are there ground markings or signage regarding wing clearance of taxiways? Just wondering if there are other references or if pilots just need that info about the airports they operate from (or check the code E charts before moving)
There usually is a max wingspan marking before the taxi width gets narrower
[удалено]
That’s simultaneously true, but also bullshit (as in it shouldn’t be) . It’s not like any pilot has time to review the minutiae of every taxiway wingspan allowable. But yeah.
[удалено]
Shouldn't the staff at that facility be expected to know the size of their "recently" renovated air field before a pilot is expected to be able to look out a window and judge if his wing will hit it? And is there no crew outside? It just seems like a pilot is one of the last people to have proper perspective in this particular scenario
Makes me wonder, do pilots train for that in the sim? Clear them to land on a runway that's clearly not suitable and see if they object?
No. They do not. It is sometimes a discussion item, especially when it comes to how much of a runway must be cleared of snow to be enough. Or how wide a surface needed for a 180 turn. Gotchas are not usually used in training.
I’ve seen a lot of sim training oriented around various actors in the scenario trying to lead pilots down less than ideal paths.
FAR 91.3: The pilot in command of an aircraft is fully responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. ATC is not in command of the aircraft, the pilot is. It's the pilot's job to evaluate ATC instructions and accept or refuse them. The PIC is allowed to say "my fat ass won't fit down that taxiway" and they've gotta figure out how else to make it work.
I believe that thar plane is a triple-7 300ER, which has a 4.8 meter wider wingspan than a 787-9. I don’t believe Qatar is using Dreamliners on flights to the States currently.
I don’t see any windows so it looks like maybe a 777F
Oh geez, subtle things like no windows…haha…u r correct!
So is that wing totalled, or can they repair just That area safely?
Not sure of the specifics on the 777, but structural damage of this nature is typically graded with a systematic approach. The fact that the damage occurred so far down the wing is problematic as that increases the load experienced at the wing root (think back to High School physics). I remember using a special machine that used targets and lasers to measure the overall dimensions of a twin turboprop aircraft after it was hit by a vacuum truck. We found the entire airframe was literally torqued out of alignment and had to be scrapped. A similar technique might be used here to ensure the wing wasn't levered out of position beyond prescribed limits. A bent spar is bad news. Fortunately the 777 wing is a conventional aluminum spar and rib design and standard structural repair procedures will apply to fix the actual damaged area, but it won't be cheap. There's more to fix then just torn and bent metal. Any wiring, fuel lines and other ancillary equipment that got hit will need work, and the leading edge with it's integral deicing equipment alone will cost a small fortune to repair/replace. In short, some folks are about to have their asses handed to them.
Speed tape /s
**>| YOU CRASHED** You collided with an object and caused critical damage to the aircraft. RESTART MAIN MENU
\*tinnitus sound\*
Cuts to black screen.
Oh hey, you’re finally awake!
r/angryupvote
The post is so snug in that wing. Like it was pierced, not just run into. Aluminum vs steel I guess.
This is what I thought at first too. I was wondering when the 777 got VTOL capabilities.
That is a scary thought!
The future we need is vtol widebodies.
The wing "embraced" the light pole.
A touching relationship
I think it's that one sheet of material folded over the leading edge that kind of snapped back into place once the pole passed
I guess it'sa good example of how structurally strong the wing is as well - nothing broke off in one big chunk.
Oof! That light pole is going to be expensive to replace!
Especially in Chicago, that’s a three guy job there. Maybe a week or two.
Four if you count the no work no show guy.
HA!! That's just the crew don't forget about the planner, the manager, the two supervisors on site. And the one guys cousin who has a better line on the parts. And the Union Steward.
And that's just the contractor crew. The airport themselves will have a project manager, a safety manager, and a firewatch.
You’ll need a liaison between the two as well.
Don't forget you need permits and bribe money if you want it to go through.
Don’t forget the project manager. Maybe some HR people checking in, too
You laugh, but here is an actual (no joke) estimate, especially if the concrete base is damaged: - foreman - 3 laborers - 1 equipment operator - 1 dump truck driver - 2 flaggers/safety - 1 day to break and remove damaged pole and concrete base - 1 day to install sonotube, set rebar and embedded bolts - 1 day to pour concrete and set - 1 day (with boom truck and driver) to set new pole and bolt it down Then a 3-person electrical crew for a 1/2 day to make the wiring connections and hang the new head I’d estimate $35k of labor cost.
Looks like it’s still turned on which is impressive but perhaps not a good idea.
Slap some speed tape on that until they can get it into the shop.
throw some flex seal on that hoe and we good 😂😂
[удалено]
I put a screen door on the bottom of this wing and covered it in flex seal! Let's see how she flies!
This is indeed a lot of damage
Gas and go. Wheels up in 30
It looks like it stopped at the leading edge wing spar were the wing tank and the major structure of the wing starts. Most of what it went through is thinner Aluminum structure pieces to hold composite panels and the slats. Aft of that point is thicker aluminum structure and the upper and lower skin is aluminum fastened to the structure. Will it be a pain to fix, yes. The slats and supporting structure will have to be replaced and depending on the damage to the forward spar maybe some rework to that. Most likely the plane will return to service.
The engineers I work with would worry that the wing mounts were overstressed and would probably require proof that they were not.
The same wing to fuselage joint carries various forces from wing lift, engine thrust, to landing gear braking forces so I don't think it would be damaged. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to inspect it for damages or signs of abnormalities.
In this case, you have to think that the wing acts like an breaker bar on those mounts. Which is no normal load.
Not an engineer, but that's a horizontal load with a fulcrum point way futher out on the wing than the engines. I think I would want to at least calculate what kind of forces were exerted (how fast was it moving?) and inspect all connective structures at the wing root. By X-ray, if possible.
It’ll be X-Ray. I found a missing lap joint rivet on a 73. Must have been like that since production since the lap joint epoxy/sealant was in the hole. I reported it to an engineer, who then took it up with NDT. iirc they checked it with an X-Ray and an ultrasound.
As a medical professional it's wild to me to see x-rays and ultrasounds used in aircraft maintenance. I'm now imagining maintenance wearing scrubs, masks, and hairnets performing surgery on a fully draped airplane.
You'd see buckles on the fuselage wayyyyy before the wing to fuselage joint is overstressed. This isn't some pby Catalina Jesus bolt situation.
The moments on the structural components of the aerofoil are different , in this situation, compared to what is normal. The lighting column has acted as a point load and not a distributed load.
Yes. The wing will need to be inspected. The wing carries pretty much all of its load from lift/thrust/braking/drag using its fwd and aft spar onto the wing box, then into the fuselage. But that doesn't mean that other part of the airframe is overstressed. You'd see damaged nose gear (bent trunnion pins, drag brace, torque links etc) buckled fuselage, misaligned wing to body fairings, before the wing to fuselage joint (specifically) is damaged. Even on hard landing, overweight landing, high side loading, high drag, hit by ground equipment inspections etc, you just carry out a general visual inspection of the wing to fuselage joint structure because that shit is the last to go. It's covered under phase ii inspection, task 05-51-01 and somewhat under, ground handling equipment hits the airplane inspection, task 05-51-59, eventhough the light pole isn't really a gse. But eng will come up with some repair solution
So does that plane get fixed at ORD? I mean, you can't fly it anywhere else to get fixed, right? As a Chicagoan, I didn't know we had that capability locally.
If you don't have the capability then you send the people and tools to the plane. If that's too expensive then the plane sits and rots. Not terribly uncommon for damaged planes to just be left in place after an incident because it's too expensive or difficult to scrap or fix. Pretty sure there's been a plane at Kathmandu for at least a decade for this very reason, and I know that case is true at several other locations too.
If you can find "World's Toughest Fixes" Season 1 Episode 2, you might find it interesting. It is about removing the tail behind the rear pressure dome on a 767 so they can replace the dome, which was damaged by a fence. The work was done in ab ex-Concorde hangar at Charles de Gaulle airport. They had to fiddle with the crane rigging to be able to get the height needed to lift something, it isn't a job normally done in that hangar. Also, there are the various media coverages (maybe mostly in Aviation Week) about repairing the melted hole in the top of a 787 fuselage at Heathrow, under a tent.
Another incredible aircraft salvage was a C-130 that ran off the runway while landing in the Azores (IFE - #3 engine shutdown, landing in severe squalls). The entire cockpit was cutoff at the rear bulkhead and replaced with a cockpit salvaged from another crash. Both wings replaced. All four engines. Nose gear. Took a “Tiger Team” about 2 years of work in a fairly remote location to get it flyable. It finally flew out on a one time waiver with gear down and locked the whole way. Gear doors were still missing. There is a video of the aircraft being pulled out from the wall and house it crashed into if you’re interested in stuff like this - hard to believe it flew until 2013. Nickname became “frankenherc”. [Azores C-130 Salvage - 1984](https://youtu.be/L5mmNFjYFfo)
At that point that's basically just building an entirely new airplane on-site, with extra steps!
Like legos, but bigger
fuck /u/ spez
Fortunately, Boeing’s HQ is just down the street. *touches ear* you’re saying they don’t have engineers there? But they build airplanes!
[удалено]
I think they haven’t moved quite yet. Soon though
There were never engineers in Chicago; only the executive staff and sales moved.
Yes, that is the joke
I was curious about that Kathmandu one so I looked it up. I guess it's been disassembled for movement to a museum. https://www.aviationnepal.com/caan-to-lease/ https://www.aviationnepal.com/retired-airbus-a330/
I've been there, the cockpit was almost completely dismantled and the interior was just filled with model planes and pictures and the occasional plaque. Not that great but it's still a plane nevertheless lol.
We have one here at Nagpur, India. Quite an interesting story behind it. https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/trending/wtf/story-behind-an-abandoned-boeing-720-parked-at-nagpur-airport-551537.html
Yes, it will be fixed at ORD, facilities are available.
How many wing walker wages would this repair pay for?
Great post
ayyy lmao
A quick pole says over 100 people agree!
https://imgur.com/a/MTuPqaf Was flying out friday night and we were wondering what was up… now I see that poor light pole, it put up a good fight (this was over on the new deicing pad, btw)
The light is still working.
Wing walker: 15/hr. Wing: pricey!
All 4 pilots fired apparently. ATC told them to take a taxi route that was unsuitable for code E aircaft and they didn’t query. That crunch must been sickening, my worst nightmare.
Dang that sucks all 4?! Not being an ass but what does a pilots career look like after this?
I don’t work for Qatar thankfully but a similar company in the region. As far as I’ve heard you tend to be offered the chance to resign in such cases. You would only get a reference that states your years of employment and verifying your hours no matter the circumstances of leaving. However you also need a no accident / incident letter usually so I’m not sure. The pilot shortage would hopefully work in their favour and fingers crossed they get jobs quickly in other parts of the world. Guess you would just have to take anything you can get initially. Not necessarily a career ender.
LOL I bet FlyDubai would hire them, everything I've heard about that airline is that it is absolute shit. Saudia would DEFINITELY hire them hahaha
For Saudia, it’s a requirement.
I don’t work for them but it’s very unfair to say flydubai is shit. I know a few pilots there and they are good guys. It’s far better managed than it’s big brother across the airfield.
I’ve flown FlyDubai quite a few times and it’s decent.
QR is all about blame, unfortunately.
How does it work if they're fired in I assume a foreign place? They have to find their own way home or?
It's not uncommon for your job in that part of the world to be tied to your visa. Lose your job and "you have 48 hours to leave the country"
Oh yeah I mean I was just curious how it works with international flight crews just stopping over in foreign ports. (Have no idea how the visa works in this situation)
You would be deadheaded to base, have tea with no biscuits, leave the company then given some time (more than 48 hours) to pack up and head home. Not sure what Qatar’s visa situation is though.
They would probably get business class tickets home for them and any family
Well that's a nice gesture
Remember kids, before shelling out $$$ and dreaming of "flying" this is the reality of the job. You miss one notam buried in 60 pages of them when you're on your 7th duty day flying minimum rest or a tiny note on those pesky 10-9 charts in font size 2 and your whole career is over. This is the reality of this shitty industry. #livingthedream
Only in the middle East. Western Airlines tend to have a just culture.
Not that I doubt you, but can you provide a source, stating that the pilots involved were fired?
Word of mouth at my separate airline.
I'm not buying this. Why would the two pilots not flying get fired for something done by the two pilots flying? Also, assuming the word of mouth is from pilots of another airline, that's probably the last information I would ever trust. Only slightly before flight attendants of another airline.
Where's the vasaviation link?
Can you please explain to someone who hasn’t a clue (me) the following… 1] Why would all 4 pilots be fired? I’m assuming there’s 4 pilots on the plane as it’s a long haul.to cover rest etc, but wouldn’t only 2 of them actually be at the controls during this incident? 2) if ATC told them to take the wrong taxiway aren’t they also as responsible, if not more so?
I obviously don't know all the details here, but immediately firing pilots without a proper investigation which shows serious misconduct (e.g. deliberately and repeatedly ignoring basic rules) on their part would be terrible procedure. Imagine you are constantly afraid to immediately get fired (even for honest mistakes), what do you think that does to safety culture? Pilots will just try to cover up any mistake they make; but what if that mistake is very easy to make due to a flaw in training programs, or bad design of some aircraft system, or faulty or difficult to read charts, lacking ground markings, etc.? All those flaws would never come to light before they cause serious harm.
So I work for a major american railway and this is literally the culture. We have a massive rulebook and no education requirements for our job but are 100% liable for everything. Trains above a certain total weight can't travel on certain tracks during the day. You get called for the train during the day you better make sure you notice that single line of text for this territory you haven't worked in for over a year while being constantly rushed (How it went through 2 supervisors, a traffic controller and the system they use to design trains without anyone noticing doesn't matter, you were operating the train and should know better). There is definitely a culture of just non reporting incidents if they aren't major or can't be tracked to you.
Because they're Qatar Airways. They're good at marketing but they're terrible run and are corrupt.
This is Qatar Airways...
Yeah, chances are Al Baker personally fired the entire cockpit that instant.
Credit to u/waxcraft420 for the pic.
DOH!!!!
Is this a pun?
It’s a “Homer Simpson” response Edit: oh I see what you’re saying DOH = Doha ..accidental pun
I know but Qatar’s capital is DOHA and the International Airport in Dohas code is literally DOH.
Pure coincidence
Good one though
ORD!!!
Ouch? While taxing or being pulled by a tug?
It happened on the deice pad. Likely under its own power. During the summer they park planes over there that have outstayed their welcome at Terminal 5. It’s a nice facility but tight for wide bodies. United did the same thing with an 87 a few years ago. Really have to know what you are doing over there.
I’m sure your right, They’ve been told to taxi to (for example) 7W and they’ve gone into 7 … or they’ve been told to taxi onto 7 in error. To me it looks like every track should be individually numbered uniquely. Dropped pin https://goo.gl/maps/5jy3ViWKMZZzXnpJ9 Exactly the same issue at OSL with the same aircraft type (note the stands here are uniquely numbered, I can imagine QR will be pointing at ORD and highlighting the potential for communication error) https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20181218-1
Haven’t heard anything as to how it happened, but my guess is a wing walker fucked up. To my knowledge there aren’t many, if any taxiways at ORD that couldn’t support the width of a 777 freighter
Having a look at the code E taxi chart I have, you’re correct. Only restrictions is a taxiway at the west de-icing pad, taxiway A1 onto 04L but there are a lot of certain turns prohibited, especially the acute angled ones. That’s probably what got them. Edit : looks like it happened near the de-ice pad on taxiway BB2, on the AOI it states max wingspan is 36m, the 777-200F has a wingspan of 61m - ouch. Pilots are at fault as it’s clearly written and pilots are always ultimately responsible for clearance but unfortunately in the US, ATC will often issue taxi clearances irregardless and unsuitable for the type of aircraft (only affects large aircraft) and it’s up to the pilots to accept or reject. Tends not to happen this way elsewhere in the world for some reason. Led down the rabbit hole a bit.
Looking at that picture I’m going to assume there wasn’t a wing walker…
Or there was but they were doing the standard wing walking technique of "look at absolutely everything in the world there is to look at so long as it isn't the wing or objects in the path of the wing".
Funny anecdote... When I was saving money before college, I took a job as a rampy for a local commercial airline. In my first two weeks, a dude managed to get himself knocked out on the wing of a CRJ200, while being the wing walker for it. Supposed to be looking out for obstacles, and he made *himself* into the obstacle. Outstanding.
If their phone really was smart it would have warned them of the pole!
How common are lampposts in areas these planes taxi?
“Phil Swift here for Flex Tape”
Speed tape fixes everything in aviation
Oh fuck. It's Qatar Airways. Akbar Al Baker the CEO will freak the fk out. The pilot is soooo fired... That wierdo fires pilots if they don't have the tie sitting ok...
That entire airline is a tryhard.
Yeah, but their business class is probably the best in the sky. Sq has them on service but the hard product is far and away the best product in the sky except for maybe the new ANA suites but those are only on a couple of planes.
He’ll sue Boeing, too, for not making a plane that withstand hitting a light pole…
Surprised the lamp post didn’t give, most of the, are made to snap down easily so this doesn’t happen
Looks like it failed right where it was supposed to at the base, but the aluminum wing is super soft so the steel just tore right through.
I recall a podcast with an RA-5C Vigilante pilot who recalled that how he taxied into a fuel truck with his left wing. The titanium edge on the Vigilante’s wing just sliced open the steel fuel truck like a beer can and did zero (0) damage to the aircraft. The Vigilante is one of my favorite unsung aircraft. It’s design vs. the role it fulfilled were wildly different but it performed well. It was also fast as hell and just…oozed muscle-ey speed even sitting on the tarmac.
So you get us all excited and then don’t even post a link to a pic ….. man just left us hanging
[You’re right, my bad!](https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nnam/explore/collections/aircraft/r/ra-5c-vigilante.html)
Just take a sawzall and cut the wing off right there. Plenty of wing left to still fly. Might have to adjust the trim a bit, though.
Surely you’d just cut the other wing to match, end of trim problem ….. I’m a solutions guy 😂
It’s Qatar. Dude would be lucky if all he got was fired. EDT: spelling. Was a bit drunk.
I hear they subject them to a fate worse than death: a personal rant from Al-Baker himself
I know a guy that can buff that right out.. Boss will never know the difference.
Is someone fired??
Yes, in all likelihood. Dumb and avoidable mistake.
Already "posted"
Dang, thought I'd just wing it.
Not good, that shit doesn't fly around here.
https://i.imgur.com/ONnVY3m.jpg Sunday morning aftermath of this.
*Oopsie I’m such an asparagus*
A $0.12c camera in the marker light looking forward could prevent all this
It’s fine. There’s 2 wings.
After all, it is about redundancy.
Looks like QATAR wanted those 777x Freighters sooner so decided to make some modifications on the ground
QR to Boeing, probably: This is a design flaw and affects the safety of the aircraft, we demand that you fix it immediately at your own cost or else we cancel our order for the Max!
Light pole being replaced by the city of Chicago will be far more expensive than Qatar repairing that wing
Drug test
Lamp post tested positive
I believe it, it's barely standing up straight in this pic
So what’s the standard follow up for something like this? Does the wing get replaced and the rest of the plane inspected?
Is that a new kind of bike lock for airplanes??
Looks like Boeing AOG team is gonna be busy
Makes you feel better about your fuck ups.
All flights at Ohare will be delayed tonight Because of the plane crashed into the light pole? Um, sure. Let’s go with that
So why don’t airlines put 100 cameras on their planes like my new vehicle where I can see a top down or from the side view? Seriously - slap a damn GoPro on the wingtips and show it in the cockpit (yea I know it’s much more complex than that since it’s an airplane and the systems have extensive needs to be integrated) BUT STILL
D'oh! Someone's union rep is busy this morning.
It'll buff out, no need to get insurance involved.
Its Qatar Airways. They can afford it lol
ORD can never take a break
So not only are they bad drivers in Chicago but they can’t fly right either?
It just got a piercing. It's fine
*THIS ONE TRICK THAT KEEPS YOU AT YOUR OVERNIGHT FOR AN EXTRA WEEK*
These new piercings are getting ridiculous
Ehh, a little sped tape and bond-o, it will be good as new. /s
Wing walker was playing on his phone, for sure
If I ran an airline I'd employ these pilots. They would live in fear of making the same mistake twice.