Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

Yikes, mojibake in 2021.

edit: actually, how did that happen? The apostrophes show up correctly, they’re just all preceded by a  that doesn’t seem to represent anything?

The report on that incident says there was a hardware modification to make this impossible, to be incorporated before Jan 2023.

(It also says this happened to Boeing in 2018 and they ignored it, of course)

The aircraft is 1 year old and was delivered in January...

But, fucking hell, apparently Boeing "engineers" are so dumb they never learned about Murphy's law.

Anyone who has any mechanical inkling would see that the NLG rotates around the massive bushing and putting a pin in there won’t stop anything.

One post said that the plane was only 4 months old.

There's a story that during the testing of a fighter plane - I think the F-35 but not sure - the "developers" claimed the new computer systems made most pilot errors all but impossible.

QA engineer's first check was, what happens if I try and retract the wheels while the plane is sitting on the ground and not moving. Oops.

The video looks more like the gear was intentionally retracted.

This is the third time in three years that a nose gear has collapsed while stopped or moving slowly: https://avherald.com/h?article=52292bd1 https://avherald.com/h?article=51816daf

Each time has been on different aircraft models, but there's not a lot of variation in nose wheel retraction design on airliners. There's a myriad of ways something could go wrong to make it happen, but considering how many flights there are per day, it's still an extremely rare event.

you were a half hour too impatient: https://avherald.com/h?article=53a14f7c&opt=0

No reason to downvote. The reason is because incidents on avherald get many times lots of comments both from professional pilots as well as mechanics.

This one even better: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1510091&...

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1twkg45/lufthansa...

Video: https://x.com/flightradar24/status/2062510866981924920?s=20

I duckduckgo'ed "nose gear collapse" earlier and it seems it may be an issue that's more common than expected? At least there were lots of images of airplanes with broken front wheels and the nose touching the floor.

Well this time it at least didn't fall into the environment.

Confirmation bias, instant communication, hyper focus on Boeing mishaps, etc.

The 777 and 787 programs have never seen a passenger fatality resulting from an engineering defect. That is a monumental achievement in light of the passenger miles served. Boeing has its problems, but that record speaks for itself

Commercial air traffic has increased ~400% since 1990 [0], do you feel that number reflects the increase in reporting?

0. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-air-pas...

The 1997 McDonnell Douglas acquisition led to their arrogant management culture replacing Boeing's, represented symbolically by the reference to The Economist cover September 10th-16th 1994 of camels fucking.

There have been many other safety defects and scandals swept under the rug, but they rarely make the news because they're detailed and complicated and corporate "news" isn't interested. Also, US presidents have defended them and US regulators run PR interference for them too.

The biggest one is the fact that unknowable 737 NG -6xx/-7xx/-8xx/-9xx structural fuselage elements including bear straps manufactured grossly out of spec by subcontractor Ducommun, declared "airworthy", and pounded into place on the Boeing fuselage assembly line on orders of management present greater risks of fuselage breakup during severe turbulence, runway overruns, and hard landings. There have already been fuselage breakups of NG airframes that 737 Classic aircraft survived more intact in similar circumstances. Most worryingly, there has been extensive retaliation against whistleblowers.

https://christinenegroni.com/boeing-workers-warn-of-737-ng-s...

"If it's Boeing, we ain't goin'"

I used to bring up issues in good faith regarding Boeing because it needs to improve. But it seems like HN is taking out anti-Americanism sentiment and a bit of Euro pro-Airbus, so I kinda stopped because it went from productive to attempts to create a false narrative.

It's mostly, but not entirely, a combination of biases working in a feedback loop. Because of the 737 MAX crashes, which were legitimately at least partially Boeing's fault, stories about incidents involving Boeing planes are more likely to get covered in the media and become popular on social media, essentially selection bias. Confirmation bias means both the media and readers are more likely to view it the new story as Boeing's fault whether or not that's accurate, and this first impression becomes solidified in peoples' minds, anchoring bias.

This is very important because aircraft accident investigations take time and few aviation incidents generate enough attention that there is much if any follow up once the full cause is known. This first impression is what people remember the next time there is a Boeing story, further strengthening the confirmation bias. It's a self reinforcing feedback loop.

Which is not to say that Boeing doesn't deserve some bad press. The MAX story, the door plug blowout, and some others are legitimate evidence of issues at Boeing. But the bias feedback loop ensures that every Boeing story is treated that way, significantly distorting the reality of the issue.

It was the same sniper that blew up that Starship

About as likely as the repairman getting lost in Frankfurt Airport

"reasonable"...

How insane do you want to sound?

"Yeah, let's sabotage a competitor's plane, I'm sure it won't cause a major scandal and millions of dollars of lawsuits if one of them falls out of the sky and kills ~300 people, and they caught us as the cause...".

What the hell dictionary are you using where you're asking if the word "reasonable" could apply to this idea? Is your hovercraft full of eels?

If you are inside the cabin and not expecting, would be sliding down quite a bit.

My uneducated guess is that crew members in the back galley could have been injured by unsecured items they were loading falling or sliding. The service cart itself is 200-250 lbs. With the rear galley accelerating upward, then a sudden halt to the acceleration when the front nose impacts the ground, I could imagine the cart lifting off the ground and landing on feet or legs. Or putting the cart aside, other items such as drink cans, galley appliances, etc. falling from cabinets or counters could cause injury

Because the tow guy called in the problem 10min prior and the mechanics were clustered around it deciding it it was a "get a new plane" sized problem and they did something and dropped it or whatever. Someone's hand got mashed, someone got bonked on the head and the boss spilled his coffee. Meanwhile inside the cabin whoever was febreezing vomit off the wall of the bathroom reached out to grab anything that was nearby when the plane lurched which turned out to be his coworker's ass and the fake nail grazed his eye when he got slapped for that. Some asshole manager probably slipped and fell rushing to chew them all out. And another guy got a bloody nose when he crashed his baggage tractor into a parked forklift at at 3mph because he was watching the whole deal rather than where he was going but he didn't report that one so he's not included in the total.

Yeah I'm pulling all that out my ass but I bet I'm closer than anyone around here wants me to be. However mundane and stupid you think ground ops are at an airport triple that and you'll be in the ballpark.

A ground level fall can be fatal for a senior. Throw in freak accident factors and other vulnerable demographics it's not very surprising to me.

I have relatives that work in the industry. There's liability reasons why staff regularly get taken to a hospital and evaluated, for the most minor things. If it were full of passengers boarding, there'd likely be more staff injuries reported than passenger injuries, despite the latter group being an order of magnitude larger.

There may have also been additional ground crew on board the plane for changeover duties (cleaners, catering staff, etc)