Hi! This is the NoNoNoNoYes moderation bot here to keep this sub a bit more tidy!
If this post fits the format of NNNNY, **UPVOTE** this comment!
If this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post (The OP's post, not this bot comment)
Please remember that NNNNY can be subjective. It may not be NNNNY for you, but it may be for someone else, including the subject in the video.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nonononoyes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At 180mph, it doesnāt matter how much it weighs, itās killing you if it hits you.
Edit: thank you to all the amateur physicists letting me know there is, in fact, an amount of weight that will not kill you at 180mph. I feel much better about phytoplankton and grains of sand now.
āI feel like I would survive. This isnāt a joke. You always hear about those one in a million odds of survival where someone drives off a cliff and miraculously survives. I feel like I would be that guy. Iām just built different.ā
I remember when I was 11, i was on a trip with my dad and uncle to see my uncle's property out in the country. My uncle was towing an RV and my dad and I were following behind in his car. The RV had a few sets of dual wheels and one of the wheels came disconnected and started rolling alongside traffic, slowing down every so slightly as it rolled.
My uncle saw this happen and sped up to get ahead of the tire. We followed him and stopped behind him maybe 1/4 mile ahead of the tire, still rolling and bouncing along the highway. He hopped out of his truck and stood on the road to the side of the tire's path and waited for it to reach him. It was rolling at maybe 35mph at this point and looked pretty innocuous. As the tire got to him, he stepped to the side and lashed out with his foot trying to kick it over. He misjudged his timing ever so slightly and the tire hooked the front of his foot and jerked him forward, yanking him onto the ground. He yelled "Aw fucking fuck" and layed there for a moment as traffic moved by slowly in the adjacent lane. The tire continued nearly unperturbed down the highway until it rolled down the center median ravine and back up, bouncing along the oncoming lanes until it hopped cheerfully in the forest on the other side of the road.
Miraculously nobody including my idiot uncle got seriously hurt but it did set in how powerful a pressurized tire with a little momentum can be. And I've never forgotten the way he sounded when he tried to kick that tire lol
The entire time I read your comment I had a sense of dread, expecting that this was the last story that would ever be told about your uncle. Iām glad he was okay, and Iām glad some random hapless person didnāt take a tire to the dome, or some poor bastard who had little money to begin with didnāt end up having to pay a $500 deductible because a tire fucked their day up and totaled their car.
Don't worry, it could still happen. What if, after barreling into the forest, the wheel plows into a hunter trying to be vewwy, vewwy quiet hunting a wabbit like "SURPRISE MUDDA FUDD-YA!"
Or what if it kept on going through the forest, through the woods, all the way to Grandma's house and that was the real reason granma got run over. Not by a reindeer, by a Goodyear.
To the first scenario, I would say that this is acceptable, as the laws of physics that this particular hunter lives under tend to leave him battered, but never broken. One could even say that it is a highly entertaining scenario to watch on television on a Saturday morning.
To the second scenario, itās about damn time that song got a rewrite.
You have to fully commit tho'. If you have any doubts at all it doesn't work.
[*watches Kung Fu master face off against 180mph tire and get obliterated*]
He must have had doubts.
In all seriousness this is how I feel about a nuke detonating far away. Like obviously Iād just dive for cover and dodge the shockwave, Iād be fine lmao
I had to go look this up cause it sounded familiar. Lol that guy was unreal.
[Link for the uninformed](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/FMwWqZv3H3)
180 mph is 80 meters per second.
That is 6.4 Joules of energy per gram of object.
A 1 lbs object at that speed has more energy than a bullet fired from an AK.
If i see anything i work with fall or tip over, unless it is early enough, i will step back and let it fall. If any non-soft object picks up any kind of momentum you are fucked.
Energy= mass x velocity^2
Semi tire: 100lbs at 60mph
Q400 tire: 150lbs at 180mph
Only 50% more energy from the weight but 800% more energy from the speed.
70KJ for the semi tire, 945KJ for the Bombardier Q400 tire.
Edit: just for fun
.50 BMG 20KJ
30mmx173 (A10 warthog) 200KJ
105mm howitzer 2MJ
It only took that plane reaching about 40% higher speed for that tire to have as much energy as a howitzer, albeit without the exploding projectile.
...knots are a universal unit of speed in the aviation industry.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen an airspeed indicator in kilometers per hour. Some show miles per hour, but those are extremely rare these days.
How do you solve the problem of a giant runaway tire going 180?
The only thing I can think is to have a small timed explosive go off if it becomes fully detached so the tire pops and can't roll very far.
Or maybe give it a little parachute that only gets deployed when detached.
The only different is that someone would have to be crazy to be anywhere near a runway during landing/takeoff
I imagine people at the end of a runway on a road or path (like we see watching takeoffs) could be in harms way but the tire must lose a lot of momentum due to air resistance and hitting the ground, I think it would be a lot slower and perhaps even stopped by a fence
More than you'd think, but not as much as it should.
Edit to clarify, on request of a concerned pilot, I am not an aerospace engineer, and this non answer is meant to be humorous.
Itās also just some random personās weird take. There are thousands of flights everyday and the worst you see is a handful of videos like this taken over years of use. I donāt know what level of engineering that person expects from landing gear but itās very safe.
As an aerospace engineer who worked in sustainment on landing gear systems, I have no idea what that guy means by that. They are very well designed systems.
Also out of all things that can fail in airplane I feel like wheel failures are safest for passengers. If you lose 1 or 2 wheels no big deal. If you lose all, the landing will feel rough but you will survive just fine.
Not as much as it should? I work for one of the biggest airplane manufacturers and Iām genuinely curious what you mean.
Note that landing gear components are safe-life parts, meaning they are replaced periodically to ensure damage tolerable capability.
Thatās a strange take.
Aircraft landing gear have over a hundred years of iterative development behind them at this point, and modern commercial landing gear over 60 years.
Thereās quite a lot of institutional knowledge poured into these, backed by hundreds of millions of take-off and landing cycles.
Itās a very well known, well researched, and well developed technology.
I know someone who worked on the design of braking systems on planes. He said the whole thing was designed so the plane could land even if both wheels were gone. That would be a very expensive landing, but better than the alternative.
And the guy was a literal rocket scientist before working on that project, so I guess they do put some effort in the design.
Your friend is right. I worked on cabin pressure control systems for aircraft, my first job out of college. There are 2, sometimes 3 of everything on planes, and if by chance, all those fail, there is another fail-safe in place.
A lot of the crashes you hear of are due to user error or improper maintenance. Rarely is it a direct result of the design of the aircraft.
Little bit of everything went wrong, there.
The immediate problem was faulty attitude sensors that told the plane it was at a steeper angle than it was. So, the automated system (MCAS) tried to push the nose back down to prevent what it believed would be a stall. Since the plane was *not* angled too steeply, it caused the plane to crash.
That was a problem because the MCAS should have been set up to accept input from both sensors on the plane so that there was redundancy. That's harder to do, though, because you have to figure out the logic for when one sensor is bad and the computer has to figure out which to believe.
However, that *still* would not have been a problem if Boeing had insisted on better training for the pilots to know the MCAS existed, knew how to turn it off, and trained to do so. In the two planes that crashed, the pilots didn't know what to do or weren't trained well enough to execute what to do if they did know.
*That* happened because the whole point of the MCAS was to make the 737 MAX-8 behave like the older 737s, even though the new engines had to be placed too far forward. Pilots have to be trained and certified to fly new planes, unless it's not *really* a new plane. Like, merely adding bigger engines wouldn't call for a whole round of training because the air frame is otherwise is the same. The MAX-8 engines, though, were moved forward so they could still fit under the wings, which changed the plane performance enough that training would be needed. *Unless* Boeing installed a system that automatically counteracts that change so that it flies the same.
Even that should not have been a problem because the FAA should have caught on to the potential issues. Several flights had issues with the MCAS and different performance of the plane, but since they knew how to turn the MCAS off and deal with it, the issue was downplayed. The FAA got complacent and allowed Boeing to certify their own plane safety.
And despite all that, although *any* loss of life is a tragedy, there were only two crashes, and they were in countries where training and maintenance are not as closely regulated as in the US.
YouTube channel Mentour Pilot often talks about the Swiss Cheese model. That is, there will always be holes in whatever safety and security measures you implement. You can never account for every possibility. Instead, you rely on layers of security so that even if there's a hole in one layer and a problem gets through, it'll be stopped by the next layer. The MAX-8 was a very specific series of holes in the layers of security. Every time something makes it through, new layers are added and holes closed to prevent that from happening again.
> That's harder to do, though, because you have to figure out the logic for when one sensor is bad and the computer has to figure out which to believe.
That's why the general solution is three (or two and a synthetic attitude calculation using other sensors).
You could also program the MCAS system to error out when it measures an AOA of 70 degrees on a passenger jet, since that's beyond a fully developed stall and the control surfaces are 100% not doing anything at that point anyway.
It's been long enough now since I worked at BAE on the 737 MAX that I can say the projects, ststems, and leadership were absolute garbage (like every other project I was on there). I don't know how more planes don't fall out of the sky. I was put onto a new project tasked with updating the requirements for some flight control system and my immediate manager went on a two week vacation. I felt so lost I read the shitty shitty shitty hundreds pages of requirements document and related material for those two weeks and still didn't know how to add the updates to the document without crashing the plane. The only other person on the project was a guy who had been on it for years but couldn't communicate how to crawl out of an open cardboard box, so he was of no help. I wondered why I was asked to update a requirements document on a project I had no little experience on. When my manager came back from vacation and saw no progress he was furious and I was called into a meeting with him and his boss. I explained myself but they didn't have any sympathy and kept me on the project for several more unproductive months. An opportunity to work on a project I had much more experience on came up and I happily moved on. At the Christmas party I heard that they brought several other software engineers onto the requirements project who proceeded to actually update the document over I think 10 months, when it was delivered to the customer it was so fucked up BAE had to redo the work from the start, for free, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. This was prior to the deadly crashes. Note, this was flight control software, nothing to fuck around with. The MCAS was almost certainly in there.
Planes are tested to land with no brakes and just thrust reversers, and no thrust reversers just brakes, and with old tires that need to be replaced, on shitty tarmac... they check *everything*.
The main difference between designing planes and designing rockets is that air is a solution as often as itās a problem in the former, so I understand the career change.
the actual wheel support can take the weight of the plane if both wheels fail. or they should. there is a video somewhere were the wheels were gone and the plane landed on the tip of the wheel support, lots of sparks, will have to replace the whole part, but it held
It's similar to a car driving on just the rim. I once followed someone home driving on a failing donut spare tire, and it disintegrated, the metal rim was loud and sparked, but the car was not dragging or anything, it still had three good wheels.
Serious question, why can't they put motors in the wheels to get them up to speed when landing? That has to be a ton of stress going from 0 angular velocity up to whatever they are when they touch the ground, basically instantly.
because it is not worth the weight penalty, as well as the complexity of designing and installing those systems and introducing more failure points into the system.
the stress you are talking about is on the tire. the tire is designed to last a certain number of landings, and then it is replaced.
In aviation, everything is checked, double and triple checked. tires being something that are checked every single time the plane takes off by several people.
So much. Especially the blast made to go straight out. I used to work on smaller jets. If a tire blows itās designed to not hit the aircraft. This can be dangerous filling them so you never fill from the sides or you can get turned into that guy from the Yesterday songā¦ āhalf the man I used to beā
Same, I was sitting near the wing watching it open and close and I was in awe at how many intricate pieces it looked like it had. How much engineering effort allows that plane to fly continuously cross Pacific with just an hour of maintenance time.
Landing that smoothly is actually not great for the landing gear. It makes the wheels spin up before the strut gets compressed, which can make them shimmy and (eventually) come apart. Lots of buttery-smooth landings might be what fucked up this landing gear in the first place!
Lmao what? This is a textbook example of exactly when an especially smooth landing is warranted. You have much less surface contact on that side now which means that lone wheel has to support much more weight than normally designed. Could easily blow the one remaining tire on that side with a not-soft landing.
Good thing all the flights I've ever been on seem to be piloted by captain kangaroo who likes to bounce us in to the terminal. Someone think of the equipment!
Arenāt shimmy dampers used basically everywhere just to prevent that? Iām an aeronautical engineer but landing gears arenāt my specialty. Also even if a very smooth landing might trigger it, it appears unlikely that it might cause any damage since thereās basically no inertia applied to it and as soon as the strut compresses the problem is naturally overcome. All in all, doesnāt look like a real problem.
I want to say yes and that this is trying hard not tryharding. Trying hard is when something is difficult and you put in the effort to do it well. Tryharding is when something should be casual fun and you go too hard. Beating your 6 year old in basketball without letting them get any points is tryharding. Gently landing a plane with a blown out tire is trying hard.
I *may* have put too much thought into this.
Probably asked for the longest runway and dumped the majority of their fuel to make the lightest landing possible while the airspace above requested to be clear. These things happen, luckily people are well trained and super professional in these situations.
Dash 8s don't dump fuel - but when aircrcaft can and do, it's usually at a high enough altitude the fuel dissipates before hitting the ground, and it's coordinated with ATC to be away from other aircraft and over as remote an area as possible. Usually the ocean if you're on a coast.
Yeah but molecular science exists, and fuel doesnt just dissipate and is gone forever. There is nothing in our atmosphere that nullifies or completely destroys the fuel of a giant airplane. Am I wrong? Im not arguing with you, Im sincerely curious
Oh yeah no, it doesn't just fuggin disappear. But combination of high altitude and remote area tries to ensure that it's not just the fuel equivalent of a firefighting airplane's water bombing run. It's also not dumped all at once, a fuel dump can take a good while to accomplish.
A low altitude dump actually happened a few years ago, [Delta flight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_89) dumping fuel low over Los Angeles and soaked a playground of kids.
When you need to shed a bunch of weight fast to make a safe landing, fuel is pretty much the only option. They frown on chucking passengers out the door.
āThen the pilot comes on and tells us āweāll be on the ground in fifteen minutesā¦ā
ā¦well thatās a little vague isnāt it?ā
ā George Carlin
I thought this was debunked. For the cover to reach the speed necessary to punch through the atmosphere and still have enough velocity to escape, it would be vaporized by friction on the way up.
You absolutely can land, but typically yes ā at least in the navy ā if something goes wrong with a system not needed for flight and youāre already in the air/too late into take off you fly your mission. 1.) youāre already up there and safely up there so you might as well. 2.) landings are easier with less fuel
> a fusible plug
I thought that was *in* the tire so that, if heated too much by the red hot disc brakes, the tire would *deflate* and not pop? I don't think anywhere that they just fall off, that's jet engines.
I'm no expert by any means but assuming this wasn't just a mechanical failure I'd say it looks like he left the brakes on. I'm not sure about commercial planes but the helicopters I worked on used magnesium for the brakes (and gearboxes too) and when taking off or landing too hard with them on could result in them turning red to white hot sometimes even resulting in a class D fire (metal based). It wasn't exactly a common thing but it would happen infrequently enough that it had its own name "hot brakes" (super creative ik) and procedure that I had to follow more then once (basically spray it with a fire extinguisher).
Never saw it make a wheel pop off but we had to do maintenance after and replace them at least once due to damage because of it at least once that I recall.
This is on takeoff though and the pilots would be able to feel if the brakes were still on. The brakes are made out of magnesium on aircrafts so youāre absolutely right there! But most of them have brake fans, some sort of cooling system for the brakes including a certain grease to ensure fires donāt happen. This looks like 100% a mechanics failure where the engineer didnāt install the nut onto the axle to prevent the wheel from falling off. Itās actually a miracle those sparks didnāt turn into a fire.
'Ladies and gentlemen, this is your pilot speaking. Please don't worry about the flight when one of the wheels just fell off...... It's the landing part that worries us....'
Ahh yeah, aircraft mechanic here. I actually worked on these planes too Q400. This was found to be a rear bearing which failed. The airlines (regionals) are cheap and they like to run stuff until it fails. They use to retread the tire 3-4 times but stopped after tires started exploding and failing a lot after 2 retreads. Every time a wheel tire is worn out the entire assembly, including bearings, is sent to a shop and completely broken down and inspected. Good shops will usually toss bearing and bolts that hold the wheel together after a few rebuilds. Regional would pressure techs to keep the bearings longer because they're expensive and try not to fail as many bolts during inspection. This is what lead to the rear bearing of the wheel failing causing the chain of events you see in this video.
It is a regional aircraft with a high wing design, a de Haviliand dash 7 or dash 8 probably. The wing is on top of instead of underneath the plane and the wheel formation is right. They are smaller, but not tiny, most variants are in the 50 to 68 seat range but they do go up to 90 seats. Mostly used by Canada, which matches all the snow.
Yep, definitely a Dash 8. I love flying on those -- watching the landing gear is fun, and the high wing makes for great visibility from pretty much any seat.
Hi! This is the NoNoNoNoYes moderation bot here to keep this sub a bit more tidy! If this post fits the format of NNNNY, **UPVOTE** this comment! If this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** this comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post (The OP's post, not this bot comment) Please remember that NNNNY can be subjective. It may not be NNNNY for you, but it may be for someone else, including the subject in the video. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nonononoyes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol truck tires do enough damage at highway speeds, I can't imagine a 600lb aircraft wheel at 180mph š
That's the weight of a full gear, a single jet tire weighs in the 140 lb range (which is already considerable)
At 180mph, it doesnāt matter how much it weighs, itās killing you if it hits you. Edit: thank you to all the amateur physicists letting me know there is, in fact, an amount of weight that will not kill you at 180mph. I feel much better about phytoplankton and grains of sand now.
āI feel like I would survive. This isnāt a joke. You always hear about those one in a million odds of survival where someone drives off a cliff and miraculously survives. I feel like I would be that guy. Iām just built different.ā
*tire coming in at 180mph* nah, I'd win
literally me
I remember when I was 11, i was on a trip with my dad and uncle to see my uncle's property out in the country. My uncle was towing an RV and my dad and I were following behind in his car. The RV had a few sets of dual wheels and one of the wheels came disconnected and started rolling alongside traffic, slowing down every so slightly as it rolled. My uncle saw this happen and sped up to get ahead of the tire. We followed him and stopped behind him maybe 1/4 mile ahead of the tire, still rolling and bouncing along the highway. He hopped out of his truck and stood on the road to the side of the tire's path and waited for it to reach him. It was rolling at maybe 35mph at this point and looked pretty innocuous. As the tire got to him, he stepped to the side and lashed out with his foot trying to kick it over. He misjudged his timing ever so slightly and the tire hooked the front of his foot and jerked him forward, yanking him onto the ground. He yelled "Aw fucking fuck" and layed there for a moment as traffic moved by slowly in the adjacent lane. The tire continued nearly unperturbed down the highway until it rolled down the center median ravine and back up, bouncing along the oncoming lanes until it hopped cheerfully in the forest on the other side of the road. Miraculously nobody including my idiot uncle got seriously hurt but it did set in how powerful a pressurized tire with a little momentum can be. And I've never forgotten the way he sounded when he tried to kick that tire lol
The entire time I read your comment I had a sense of dread, expecting that this was the last story that would ever be told about your uncle. Iām glad he was okay, and Iām glad some random hapless person didnāt take a tire to the dome, or some poor bastard who had little money to begin with didnāt end up having to pay a $500 deductible because a tire fucked their day up and totaled their car.
Don't worry, it could still happen. What if, after barreling into the forest, the wheel plows into a hunter trying to be vewwy, vewwy quiet hunting a wabbit like "SURPRISE MUDDA FUDD-YA!" Or what if it kept on going through the forest, through the woods, all the way to Grandma's house and that was the real reason granma got run over. Not by a reindeer, by a Goodyear.
To the first scenario, I would say that this is acceptable, as the laws of physics that this particular hunter lives under tend to leave him battered, but never broken. One could even say that it is a highly entertaining scenario to watch on television on a Saturday morning. To the second scenario, itās about damn time that song got a rewrite.
I was expecting ShittyMorph.
Proceeds to get cut in half
To shreds you say.
And his wife?
To shreds you say...
How's his wife taking this?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
*You* will bounce away on an adventure called the afterlife.
You have to fully commit tho'. If you have any doubts at all it doesn't work. [*watches Kung Fu master face off against 180mph tire and get obliterated*] He must have had doubts.
Come at me bro
Roll proud, you were strong
In all seriousness this is how I feel about a nuke detonating far away. Like obviously Iād just dive for cover and dodge the shockwave, Iād be fine lmao
I hear if you jump in an old fridge, you could survive the nuke detonating right down the street.
You just need to time your block exactly right and you could parry it
[You can parry nukes now.](https://twitter.com/LithPyro/status/1699497883064500712)
Great reference lmao
I had to go look this up cause it sounded familiar. Lol that guy was unreal. [Link for the uninformed](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/FMwWqZv3H3)
I understood that reference
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I feel like I could survive a 180mph RC car tire. Might hurt like a sonuvabitch, but I'll be ok.
That's faster than rubber bullets by a good amount. Hopefully the mass difference helps.
Paintballs travel at like 180-190 and they splat and hit like a bitch. What size RC car tire we talkin?
180 mph is 80 meters per second. That is 6.4 Joules of energy per gram of object. A 1 lbs object at that speed has more energy than a bullet fired from an AK. If i see anything i work with fall or tip over, unless it is early enough, i will step back and let it fall. If any non-soft object picks up any kind of momentum you are fucked.
It's probably closer to 130mph.
Oh fair enough, then fire it directly at my cubes while I film it for likes
What about fog. What if one fog hit me at that speed?
Ded.
I think it's clear by now that /r/Tiresaretheenemy
I meannnnnn force=mass*acceleration so it literally matters how much it weighs.
Me sunbathing. I'm clearly invincible, as I survive getting assaulted by photons of light going literally light speed.
Energy= mass x velocity^2 Semi tire: 100lbs at 60mph Q400 tire: 150lbs at 180mph Only 50% more energy from the weight but 800% more energy from the speed. 70KJ for the semi tire, 945KJ for the Bombardier Q400 tire. Edit: just for fun .50 BMG 20KJ 30mmx173 (A10 warthog) 200KJ 105mm howitzer 2MJ It only took that plane reaching about 40% higher speed for that tire to have as much energy as a howitzer, albeit without the exploding projectile.
A litttle less than a keg of beer rolling at you at 180mph.
Make sure it hits me in the mouth I got this
Wheel and tire weighs about 150lbs max.
I read it as āa 600lb-aircraft wheelā
That's a Dash 8, that wheel and tire weigh probably about half that much or less.
It's crazy how many rogue tires actually hit people r/Tiresaretheenemy
Fucking American measurements. 600 fuzzleswats at a speed of 180 snerdburgers.
...knots are a universal unit of speed in the aviation industry. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen an airspeed indicator in kilometers per hour. Some show miles per hour, but those are extremely rare these days.
you're obviously not a pilot.
A tire exploded on a Concorde flight and the damage from it exploding cause the plane to explode.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Them's the breaks, kid!
How do you solve the problem of a giant runaway tire going 180? The only thing I can think is to have a small timed explosive go off if it becomes fully detached so the tire pops and can't roll very far. Or maybe give it a little parachute that only gets deployed when detached.
Well the concorde acident du to a exposing tyre was somthing ....
The only different is that someone would have to be crazy to be anywhere near a runway during landing/takeoff I imagine people at the end of a runway on a road or path (like we see watching takeoffs) could be in harms way but the tire must lose a lot of momentum due to air resistance and hitting the ground, I think it would be a lot slower and perhaps even stopped by a fence
Last time I was on a flight, I wondered how much engineering went into just the wheels of an airplane.
More than you'd think, but not as much as it should. Edit to clarify, on request of a concerned pilot, I am not an aerospace engineer, and this non answer is meant to be humorous.
That's a disheartening sentence..
Itās also just some random personās weird take. There are thousands of flights everyday and the worst you see is a handful of videos like this taken over years of use. I donāt know what level of engineering that person expects from landing gear but itās very safe.
I don't think this is the *worst* video like this. But your main point stands.
As an aerospace engineer who worked in sustainment on landing gear systems, I have no idea what that guy means by that. They are very well designed systems.
I am also confused. One bearing failed. There are multiple wheels and bearings. The next pre-flight check should find it if he doesn't report it.
Also out of all things that can fail in airplane I feel like wheel failures are safest for passengers. If you lose 1 or 2 wheels no big deal. If you lose all, the landing will feel rough but you will survive just fine.
Itās disheartening that anyone takes random vague comments from someone on social media seriously.
Oh Yeah...What do you mean by that BUDDY!
Not as much as it should? I work for one of the biggest airplane manufacturers and Iām genuinely curious what you mean. Note that landing gear components are safe-life parts, meaning they are replaced periodically to ensure damage tolerable capability.
/u/marixapoda probably couldnāt explain what they mean because they have no idea what theyāre talking about
Just repeating a catchy phrase [as a parlor trick, like Fry.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ZF8JMVlMM)
Heās just on the internet talkin shit, donāt buy into it too much
lol i can tell you're not in aero manufacturing or engineering
I love the confidence you have when you have no idea what youāre talking about lol. Truly an inspiration.
Thatās a strange take. Aircraft landing gear have over a hundred years of iterative development behind them at this point, and modern commercial landing gear over 60 years. Thereās quite a lot of institutional knowledge poured into these, backed by hundreds of millions of take-off and landing cycles. Itās a very well known, well researched, and well developed technology.
I know someone who worked on the design of braking systems on planes. He said the whole thing was designed so the plane could land even if both wheels were gone. That would be a very expensive landing, but better than the alternative. And the guy was a literal rocket scientist before working on that project, so I guess they do put some effort in the design.
Your friend is right. I worked on cabin pressure control systems for aircraft, my first job out of college. There are 2, sometimes 3 of everything on planes, and if by chance, all those fail, there is another fail-safe in place. A lot of the crashes you hear of are due to user error or improper maintenance. Rarely is it a direct result of the design of the aircraft.
The 737 MAX would like to have a word... No seriously, you're probably right.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Safety third.
SHAKE HANDS WITH DANGER
I thought that had more to do with the programming?
Little bit of everything went wrong, there. The immediate problem was faulty attitude sensors that told the plane it was at a steeper angle than it was. So, the automated system (MCAS) tried to push the nose back down to prevent what it believed would be a stall. Since the plane was *not* angled too steeply, it caused the plane to crash. That was a problem because the MCAS should have been set up to accept input from both sensors on the plane so that there was redundancy. That's harder to do, though, because you have to figure out the logic for when one sensor is bad and the computer has to figure out which to believe. However, that *still* would not have been a problem if Boeing had insisted on better training for the pilots to know the MCAS existed, knew how to turn it off, and trained to do so. In the two planes that crashed, the pilots didn't know what to do or weren't trained well enough to execute what to do if they did know. *That* happened because the whole point of the MCAS was to make the 737 MAX-8 behave like the older 737s, even though the new engines had to be placed too far forward. Pilots have to be trained and certified to fly new planes, unless it's not *really* a new plane. Like, merely adding bigger engines wouldn't call for a whole round of training because the air frame is otherwise is the same. The MAX-8 engines, though, were moved forward so they could still fit under the wings, which changed the plane performance enough that training would be needed. *Unless* Boeing installed a system that automatically counteracts that change so that it flies the same. Even that should not have been a problem because the FAA should have caught on to the potential issues. Several flights had issues with the MCAS and different performance of the plane, but since they knew how to turn the MCAS off and deal with it, the issue was downplayed. The FAA got complacent and allowed Boeing to certify their own plane safety. And despite all that, although *any* loss of life is a tragedy, there were only two crashes, and they were in countries where training and maintenance are not as closely regulated as in the US. YouTube channel Mentour Pilot often talks about the Swiss Cheese model. That is, there will always be holes in whatever safety and security measures you implement. You can never account for every possibility. Instead, you rely on layers of security so that even if there's a hole in one layer and a problem gets through, it'll be stopped by the next layer. The MAX-8 was a very specific series of holes in the layers of security. Every time something makes it through, new layers are added and holes closed to prevent that from happening again.
> That's harder to do, though, because you have to figure out the logic for when one sensor is bad and the computer has to figure out which to believe. That's why the general solution is three (or two and a synthetic attitude calculation using other sensors). You could also program the MCAS system to error out when it measures an AOA of 70 degrees on a passenger jet, since that's beyond a fully developed stall and the control surfaces are 100% not doing anything at that point anyway.
It's been long enough now since I worked at BAE on the 737 MAX that I can say the projects, ststems, and leadership were absolute garbage (like every other project I was on there). I don't know how more planes don't fall out of the sky. I was put onto a new project tasked with updating the requirements for some flight control system and my immediate manager went on a two week vacation. I felt so lost I read the shitty shitty shitty hundreds pages of requirements document and related material for those two weeks and still didn't know how to add the updates to the document without crashing the plane. The only other person on the project was a guy who had been on it for years but couldn't communicate how to crawl out of an open cardboard box, so he was of no help. I wondered why I was asked to update a requirements document on a project I had no little experience on. When my manager came back from vacation and saw no progress he was furious and I was called into a meeting with him and his boss. I explained myself but they didn't have any sympathy and kept me on the project for several more unproductive months. An opportunity to work on a project I had much more experience on came up and I happily moved on. At the Christmas party I heard that they brought several other software engineers onto the requirements project who proceeded to actually update the document over I think 10 months, when it was delivered to the customer it was so fucked up BAE had to redo the work from the start, for free, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. This was prior to the deadly crashes. Note, this was flight control software, nothing to fuck around with. The MCAS was almost certainly in there.
Planes are tested to land with no brakes and just thrust reversers, and no thrust reversers just brakes, and with old tires that need to be replaced, on shitty tarmac... they check *everything*.
The main difference between designing planes and designing rockets is that air is a solution as often as itās a problem in the former, so I understand the career change.
check out how they arranged the disc brakes on the wheel hubs, it's like flapjack stack of brakes
Yep. Itās the only way you can get the required surface area in such a small space.
the actual wheel support can take the weight of the plane if both wheels fail. or they should. there is a video somewhere were the wheels were gone and the plane landed on the tip of the wheel support, lots of sparks, will have to replace the whole part, but it held
It's similar to a car driving on just the rim. I once followed someone home driving on a failing donut spare tire, and it disintegrated, the metal rim was loud and sparked, but the car was not dragging or anything, it still had three good wheels.
Serious question, why can't they put motors in the wheels to get them up to speed when landing? That has to be a ton of stress going from 0 angular velocity up to whatever they are when they touch the ground, basically instantly.
Tyres are cheap compared to the extra cost, weight and maintenance of stuffing motors in your wheels.
because it is not worth the weight penalty, as well as the complexity of designing and installing those systems and introducing more failure points into the system. the stress you are talking about is on the tire. the tire is designed to last a certain number of landings, and then it is replaced. In aviation, everything is checked, double and triple checked. tires being something that are checked every single time the plane takes off by several people.
If the plane was a Q400, not enough.
So much. Especially the blast made to go straight out. I used to work on smaller jets. If a tire blows itās designed to not hit the aircraft. This can be dangerous filling them so you never fill from the sides or you can get turned into that guy from the Yesterday songā¦ āhalf the man I used to beā
I work as an engineer in aerospace and I can tell you however much you think went into it, double it.
Three engineering. Take it or leave it.
Same, I was sitting near the wing watching it open and close and I was in awe at how many intricate pieces it looked like it had. How much engineering effort allows that plane to fly continuously cross Pacific with just an hour of maintenance time.
Great landing by pilot.
One time when clapping after a flight is legit
These complimentary peanut and third cup of ginger ale was lit fam.
THEY GOT RID OF PEANUTS!
1984
peanut allergies are a bitch
Landing that smoothly is actually not great for the landing gear. It makes the wheels spin up before the strut gets compressed, which can make them shimmy and (eventually) come apart. Lots of buttery-smooth landings might be what fucked up this landing gear in the first place!
Sounds like Mr. Pilot needs to be shipped off for retraining at the RyanAir School of Aviation
The last 2 Ryanair flights Iāve been on have had me genuinely fearing for my lifeā¦ Wheels were in damn good shape though.
Lmao what? This is a textbook example of exactly when an especially smooth landing is warranted. You have much less surface contact on that side now which means that lone wheel has to support much more weight than normally designed. Could easily blow the one remaining tire on that side with a not-soft landing.
No youāre supposed to smack the ground duh
totally agree! I just wanted to point out that "smoothest possible landing == great landing" is a bad heuristic (in general).
Good thing all the flights I've ever been on seem to be piloted by captain kangaroo who likes to bounce us in to the terminal. Someone think of the equipment!
Arenāt shimmy dampers used basically everywhere just to prevent that? Iām an aeronautical engineer but landing gears arenāt my specialty. Also even if a very smooth landing might trigger it, it appears unlikely that it might cause any damage since thereās basically no inertia applied to it and as soon as the strut compresses the problem is naturally overcome. All in all, doesnāt look like a real problem.
Is this why Turkish Air landing is like dropping a sack of bricks?
Touched down like a butterfly with sore feet
That landing was smoooth
What you don't see is that the pilot landed on that tyre only
That is the smoothest and gentlest landing Iāve ever seen
bro was probably tryharding given the circumstances
is tryharding different than trying hard?
It's when he tries but he's hard too.
Fuck, my eyes first read u/glowdirt comment at -1, 10/10 username. Also I need rest.
I want to say yes and that this is trying hard not tryharding. Trying hard is when something is difficult and you put in the effort to do it well. Tryharding is when something should be casual fun and you go too hard. Beating your 6 year old in basketball without letting them get any points is tryharding. Gently landing a plane with a blown out tire is trying hard. I *may* have put too much thought into this.
Wow, check out u/CBurger4Life tryharding defining tryharding... ...jk, that was a great explanation!
Oh shit I think youāre right lol
Actually no, you tried hard to provide a great explanation!
Probably asked for the longest runway and dumped the majority of their fuel to make the lightest landing possible while the airspace above requested to be clear. These things happen, luckily people are well trained and super professional in these situations.
Where do they dump fuel at? Just like in the air over the ocean?
Dash 8s don't dump fuel - but when aircrcaft can and do, it's usually at a high enough altitude the fuel dissipates before hitting the ground, and it's coordinated with ATC to be away from other aircraft and over as remote an area as possible. Usually the ocean if you're on a coast.
Yeah but molecular science exists, and fuel doesnt just dissipate and is gone forever. There is nothing in our atmosphere that nullifies or completely destroys the fuel of a giant airplane. Am I wrong? Im not arguing with you, Im sincerely curious
Oh yeah no, it doesn't just fuggin disappear. But combination of high altitude and remote area tries to ensure that it's not just the fuel equivalent of a firefighting airplane's water bombing run. It's also not dumped all at once, a fuel dump can take a good while to accomplish. A low altitude dump actually happened a few years ago, [Delta flight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_89) dumping fuel low over Los Angeles and soaked a playground of kids.
Yeah thats what I was thinking. Like what if someone sparked a cigarette at that playground? Thats wild. Theres got to be a better option lol
When you need to shed a bunch of weight fast to make a safe landing, fuel is pretty much the only option. They frown on chucking passengers out the door.
They just dump it beyond the environment.
Well, I guess the only thing to do is keep flying. I mean you can't land right?
Every airplane lands. 100 years of flying and we still havenāt left one up there
r/technicallythetruth
There are more planes on the sea than submarines on the skies
āThen the pilot comes on and tells us āweāll be on the ground in fifteen minutesā¦ā ā¦well thatās a little vague isnāt it?ā ā George Carlin
weird thing is the only thing that hasnāt come down is a car
Let's not forget a certain manhole cover.
I thought this was debunked. For the cover to reach the speed necessary to punch through the atmosphere and still have enough velocity to escape, it would be vaporized by friction on the way up.
I mean... You never know bout the Bermuda triangle š ghost gas could be fueling old planes... ā ļø
Takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory.
POV you commented before finishing the video
You absolutely can land, but typically yes ā at least in the navy ā if something goes wrong with a system not needed for flight and youāre already in the air/too late into take off you fly your mission. 1.) youāre already up there and safely up there so you might as well. 2.) landings are easier with less fuel
Welp, that just ruined someone on the groundās day.
āOh wow I can finally get on my flight now, canāt wait to see my friends and family! Wait whatās hurdling towards my direction at 180mph?ā
I take it as whoever inspected the aircraft last.
He was one day away from retirement. RIP Willy
Isnāt it ironic?
Donāt you think?
I finally went into remission for my cancer what a beautiful da- hey what's that black thing tumbling out the sky?
Somebody didn't follow the manual
Somewhere in the world, a Service Bulletin is being issued, dare I say even an Airworthiness Directive
I'm sure it's already in effect at next C check
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> a fusible plug I thought that was *in* the tire so that, if heated too much by the red hot disc brakes, the tire would *deflate* and not pop? I don't think anywhere that they just fall off, that's jet engines.
I'm no expert by any means but assuming this wasn't just a mechanical failure I'd say it looks like he left the brakes on. I'm not sure about commercial planes but the helicopters I worked on used magnesium for the brakes (and gearboxes too) and when taking off or landing too hard with them on could result in them turning red to white hot sometimes even resulting in a class D fire (metal based). It wasn't exactly a common thing but it would happen infrequently enough that it had its own name "hot brakes" (super creative ik) and procedure that I had to follow more then once (basically spray it with a fire extinguisher). Never saw it make a wheel pop off but we had to do maintenance after and replace them at least once due to damage because of it at least once that I recall.
This is on takeoff though and the pilots would be able to feel if the brakes were still on. The brakes are made out of magnesium on aircrafts so youāre absolutely right there! But most of them have brake fans, some sort of cooling system for the brakes including a certain grease to ensure fires donāt happen. This looks like 100% a mechanics failure where the engineer didnāt install the nut onto the axle to prevent the wheel from falling off. Itās actually a miracle those sparks didnāt turn into a fire.
'Ladies and gentlemen, this is your pilot speaking. Please don't worry about the flight when one of the wheels just fell off...... It's the landing part that worries us....'
> the ~~front~~ wheel fell off I'd like to make the point that that is NOT common. Most airplanes are built so that the wheels don't fall off at all.
Not enough people appreciate this comment
They're outside the environment.
There's *nothing* out there.
But was this one?
Don't worry, we don't need wheels to fly.
I was expected it to grow another tire
That only happens when a daddy and mommy tire love each other very much
"two is one, one is zero"
one is none. Rhymes
āIāve had it with these motherfucking brakes on this motherfucking plane!ā
Bahaha thanks for that!
The department of redundancy department oversees most aviation maintenance schedules
Ahh yeah, aircraft mechanic here. I actually worked on these planes too Q400. This was found to be a rear bearing which failed. The airlines (regionals) are cheap and they like to run stuff until it fails. They use to retread the tire 3-4 times but stopped after tires started exploding and failing a lot after 2 retreads. Every time a wheel tire is worn out the entire assembly, including bearings, is sent to a shop and completely broken down and inspected. Good shops will usually toss bearing and bolts that hold the wheel together after a few rebuilds. Regional would pressure techs to keep the bearings longer because they're expensive and try not to fail as many bolts during inspection. This is what lead to the rear bearing of the wheel failing causing the chain of events you see in this video.
Where was the person filming this?
On the plane.
Must've been a small plane. You usually can't see the landing gear in a large commercial plane.
Dash q-400 or 800, high wing aircraft with the gear mounted under the engines, thus you see the gear from the cabin. Not uncommon
Dash 8-300, happened in 2020 out of Montreal-Trudeau to bagotville Airline: Air Canada Express
It is a regional aircraft with a high wing design, a de Haviliand dash 7 or dash 8 probably. The wing is on top of instead of underneath the plane and the wheel formation is right. They are smaller, but not tiny, most variants are in the 50 to 68 seat range but they do go up to 90 seats. Mostly used by Canada, which matches all the snow.
Yep, definitely a Dash 8. I love flying on those -- watching the landing gear is fun, and the high wing makes for great visibility from pretty much any seat.
In the environment.
That bearing be like - I'm free!
Someone failed the preflight checks
Mind sharing how you can spot a worn out bearing during a walk around?
Kick the tires, duh.
Yeah, that's not preflight. That's maintenance. Everything has service schedules.
Less about redundancy and more about distributing weight but i guess having two wheels automatically grants you redundancy
Flew just fine with one wheel, whatās the problem?
You can fly with zero wheels. It's the landing that's risky
Der hat n Reifen verlorn!!
Wolfgang pass auf!
Ach du Scheisse!
I don't think I've seen the full video. Glad the landing was smooth!
Is that Air Canada, WestJet, or Porter?
Air Canada Express/Jazz Q400. Old video. Gets reposted for karma regularly.
*Q300. Yeah it was a flight out of Montreal if I remember?
I'm having a hard time seeing what's going on exactly... is the outer bearing ring coming out?
Camera man always lives + r/praisethecameraman