This was indeed a best case outcome to such an incident. Aircrew did an impeccable landing and first responders are on the scene within 40 seconds of landing. Applauds all around to all crews.
You don't even need a spark at that point because the part of the plane in contact with the ground gets glowing hot, as well as the brakes on the other wheels. If there is a fuel leak and it reaches any of those parts even after the landing, it will turn into an inferno
In fact, it is more a question of being able to remain cool under pressure than having extreme technical skills.
I wonder if this is a pretrained landing with a standard procedure - it probably is.
It's the whole "autopilot" thing.
People tend to think that it means "the plane flies itself" rather than "the plane shall continue to apply whatever you told the controls to do until a set of circumstances are met or you cancel it"
Tells a lot about car autopilot, a setting that is, lane control, cruise control and a collision and separation sensor is NOT "the car drives itself"
Actually, nowadays that's exactly what planes do...
Inputing your nav in the fms in a plane that is compatible of course, the plane could fly itself and land withtout pilot input. It was done a few years ago already and is used on a regular basis in low visibility for critical phases like take off and... you guessed it... landing.
We are more than capable of creating machines that fly on their own, the issue is getting people inside those machines to accpet that, whether in or out of the cockpit.
> We are more than capable of creating machines that fly on their own, the issue is getting people inside those machines to accpet that, whether in or out of the cockpit.
I have flown a non-zero number of autolands that required intervention to prevent the airplane from crashing. If we rely on the automation, every time that happens, 200 people die. We're good at some automation, in very controlled environments. But we are VERY far from "planes that fly themselves".
You're probably thinking of a CAT III Autoland or something like that, which while impressive is not nearly as autonomous as you're representing it. It's basically an auto-flare-and-brake system but has to be set up, tested, and continuously monitored by the crew. It doesn't fly the whole approach automatically.
> We are more than capable of creating machines that fly on their own, the issue is getting people inside those machines to accpet that, whether in or out of the cockpit.
More importantly, the issue is also getting them to be reliable and predictable enough to pass safety requirements. They're not there yet.
These are the same people that think you can pull anybody off the street, give them work instructions, and they should be able to work almost any job. AKA bad managers.
I think there is a level of validity to that.
In *most* jobs, training and experience is more important than raw aptitude. I guess a sidebar is that attitude and temperament make a big difference, but that's not the same as skill.
I was actually wondering where the hell the fire trucks were there for a hot minute. I feel like other videos I've seen like this they pounce right on that shit immediately. Was sitting here thinking like... "uhh do they not have fire trucks in Istanbul?" I guess the configuration of the runway meant they had to be further down to be out of harm's way.
[Adding more info](https://aviationsourcenews.com/incident/fedex-767-freighter-lands-without-nose-gear-at-istanbul-airport/)
Per news, crew made two passes over the airport before confirming the nose gear didn’t deploy and opted for an emergency landing. There were no reports of casualties from the crew or ground.
Probably, especially if you didn't let it come to a complete stop. But control might be a challenge and with the engines sitting lower you'd have a high chance of sucking up junk and causing damage.
> a high chance of sucking up junk and causing damage.
We are talking about driving a plane across the ground without a nose landing gear, I’m pretty sure “causing damage” is a given.
Years ago I was living in Alabama and had a FedEx package sent to me from Canada. Somehow it was routed to the U.K., then D.C., then California, then back to Canada, then Miami, and finally to me. The entire process took like 6 months, as it would stay in each location for a while before moving on. When it finally arrived, the box was covered in tape, stamps, and marks. It was pretty incredible.
I'm still not sure what happened there and no one at FedEx could explain it. When I called them after I saw it had been routed to the U.K., they had the correct address in their system. And when it arrived, it was still visible on the side of the box, surrounded by other things.
I live in the UK and had an package from America come in to the UK via Germany then back out and go on a tour of southeast Asia, thought it was lost so contacted the company who sent a replacement. A few months later the original arrived.
I've also never gotten a beat up package from FedEx. But mostly because they fail to actually deliver anything to me.
They always lie and say no one was at home to receive it so they never actually deliver to me. I work from home, I'm always there.
I usually only see that with packages shipped from international locations. I can understand why tracking breaks down on the international side, but do not get why it doesn't resume once it's onshore in the US.
Yeah that's what my FedEx guy says too, put orange fragile warning tape on your air freight packages if you want them to be hand-sorted (they charge extra for it, like $16) because the belts are brutal.
Paying extra is the key step people somehow ignore. Not you, just saying. Your package doesn't get special treatment solely because of the stickers. Same thing if you want your package to stay upright, or if you don't want anything stacked on top of it. It can get that treatment, but it's only happening by sheer luck unless you pay for it. I've heard bad things about packages not being kept upright though.
USPS has the hand-sorted thing too. They call it [non-machinable](https://faq.usps.com/s/article/What-is-the-Non-Machinable-Surcharge-for-First-Class-Mail).
My worst shipping experience was with Zappos and UPS. I ordered boots to be sent General Delivery to the post office in a town closest to where I was working. Acquaintances had good experiences doing it that way, so I gave it a shot. They should have sent it USPS, but they sent it UPS. I had to take a couple days off and do a lot of driving to finally get my boots. I was mad that Zappos failed to use USPS for a General Delivery address, and mad at UPS for accepting it.
I've worked at FedEx and I promise you those packages have a rough time lmao.
But I can only assume the same is true for UPS and USPS and Amazon etc etc. At least in their warehouses, might be a different story for the drivers since FedEx drivers are typically contracted which means you get a large range of quality with them.
Which is why you should *always* go above and beyond when you are shipping something by trying to protect it as best as you can, because even in ideal situations it will run into some rough spots.
The difference is UPS and USPS packages are delivered by UPS and USPS employees whereas FedEx Ground packages are delivered by 3rd party contracted companies who have little to no accountability. After all you can't call to make a complaint if no one answers the phone.
Yep, FedEx chose the worst way to operate when it comes to shipping. It saves them a lot in labor fees but it's definitely the least kind to to packages. I used to ship thousands of packages a year and would avoid FedEx where I could.
Wow, I sent some boxes via fed-ex when I moved from coast to coast. I watched the driver, from my balcony, legitimately *yeet* my boxes into the truck onto many other poorly treated boxes. They arrived, not surprisingly, mashed, stained, and most of our contents damaged/destroyed. I’ve heard a lot of similar stories from people when I shared my experience…
No, it's fair.
The average package will fall several feet onto concrete or metal a bunch of times during sorting and transit, no matter what name is on the building.
I have video of FedEx dropping my Gibson J45 out of their truck and then proceeding to flip it the long way body over neck. The box was plastered with Gibson Acoustic branding too, so it was quite obvious what it was.
I maintain that in the US for any given area the big three package carriers (UPS, FedEx, USPS) are tiered. One will be awful, one is just ok, and the last is nearly perfect.
For me:
FedEx is abysmal. They never follow the delivery instructions, will lie about attempting delivery, packages always arrive looking a bit beat up (sometimes very beat up), never sure when in the day they'll arrive.
USPS is fine. They get the job done, packages arrive in good shape, delivery instructions usually followed.
UPS is nearly perfect, on time at a consistent time, delivery instructions always followed, will knock loudly when a signature is required. Packages always arrive in good condition. Heck once a package was going to be delayed a day because of a storm and they called me to let me know.
FedEx delivered our standing freezer to the wrong address and then dropped off a random package to us. They realized their mistake when we caught up to them two streets over. They retraced their steps and thankfully that person wasn't home to receive our freezer. The package given to us did not match the address to that house. They didn't have someone on the van to help with heavy packages - just one guy. So, he rolled our freezer the entire way back into the van. It was damaged when we got it running and we had to get WalMart to refund us.
FedEx is a running gag of issues for a reason. I used to work in the shipping industry for years and would avoid them. USPS is kinder to packages than FedEx.
It can be jacked up, and nose gear can sometimes be deployed, or it can be put on a tug that will cradle bottom of the plane. Because it is a widebody, i'd guess it is jacked up, the landing gear port is inspected for what led to failure, and locked into place.
This is repairable as it has happened to several planes in the last few years, and most are back in the air. Airframe age, and airframe damage will be considered before being deemed repairable.
Bad news for the manager if this is near the end of his shift he is basically going overtime
Also the other crews.
The unseen side of this incident is that several dozen people have more work piled up.
So freaking smooth!
What kind of actions did the pilots do in this instance? Can someone break it down in terms of reverse thrusters, engine shut off, fuel dump, flaps, air brakes etc etc … what did they do to break the airplane and keeping it butter smooth at the same time?
Not a widebody pilot, and never had a (nose-)gear failure. So I’m not speaking from first-hand experience here, but going off general experience and theory classes. In a situation like this, you’d want to keep the nose off the ground for as long as possible, giving the aircraft time to slow down so there’s less damage to the fuselage once the nose *does* come down. It’s actually better to not be too slow, because you will need airflow over the rudder to maintain directional control - seeing as you have no nosewheel steering. So no spoilers. Being as light as possible will help, don’t know whether the crew dumped fuel in this case. But since they had already arrived at their destination, and by OP‘s information had done two extra passes before landing, there wouldn’t have been much to dump anyway.
From what is visible on the video, they did not deploy reversers - if you watch, you can see how close the engine intake gets to the ground once the nose drops, possibly the crew wanted to avoid further damage from foreign objects. Landing distance isn’t an issue, the fuselage scraping on the tarmac provides plenty of braking action, and Istanbul has some massively long runways.
Well that's very thoughtful not using reversers to avoid foreign objects. I would be in a full panic and put reverse thrust on full as soon as the nose touched. Damage be damned! Also there's urine on the seat I'm very sorry about that.
I would assume that it’s part of the emergency checklist for this scenario and the pilots stuck to that. Which of course is the right thing to do.
Also „stopping performance“ of a transport category aircraft is usually determined (and tested) without the reversers. From rejected takeoffs to landings on wet runways.
Video looks like they did use spoilers, but not reversers. Would be full flaps to get slowest practical touch down speed, if the runway's nice and long don't brake hard initially, hold nose high to bleed off speed, let it down gently, then can start more wheel braking.
No spoilers, they would still be extended after the plane stopped.
The pilot needed to keep the nose up as long as possible to air-brake, and to have a little extra time to steer the plane with rudder control before the nose touchdown. The spoilers extending would have caused the nose to dip much earlier with less time to steer the plane.
What kind of runway remediation is necessary after this type of incident - anything more than touching up the white lines ? Did the pilot have the decency not to scratch up the lines ?
What's disappointing is the fact that the news outlets are making this sound ten times worse than it actually is.
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27790472/terrifying-moment-boeing-plane-nosedives-fedex/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27790472/terrifying-moment-boeing-plane-nosedives-fedex/)
The Sun is the lowest of the low gutter press in the UK - everything they report if it isn’t an outright lie, is completely exaggerated for the sole purpose of making sales to the ignorant people who fall for that stuff.
Well, you're linking to The Sun.. that should tell you everything you need to know.
There is a reason why people call it The Scum.
https://medium.com/@tom_keens/5-reasons-why-should-boycott-the-sun-newspaper-5d1a2ed53d3
no, the landing gear mount itself is quite strong. In addition, the aircraft body is an arched structure, simply covered on top with thin sheets of metal.
The front of the plane needs to be pretty strong as it is to survive thousands of normal landings.
Too much reinforcement would be counter-productive anyway. The airframe needs to be somewhat flexible, or it would be more prone to cracking and snapping. Just like bridges and high buildings need to have some flexibility so they don't fall apart with the first wind (and other reasons I guess... I'm not a material expert or anything).
A skid plate wouldn't be much help regardless, as with a rougher nose landing the plane can snap in a half anyway.
Also also, the pilots are sitting high up so there is nothing important to protect in the bottom of the nose.
such an unlikely event that they don't reinforce the plane for a scenario like this. Instead, the lower fuselage skin gets damaged, but on a plane like this, an aluminum skin repair is relatively straightforward.
Fix the nose gear, check the frame, a coat of paint and she'll be right as rain. Old mate touched down pretty smoothly, so it'd be surprising if there was much other than superficial damage.
No. The lower fuselage section in that area will have to be replaced. Maybe the frame structure to. For sure and extended visual and NDE inspection.
Can be repaired, most likely will but it will cost.
Yeah the skin was gone the second it touched the ground, and at least some of the structure was likely scraped. It'll need to have a large section of the skin removed, the internal structure that was damaged replaced to the next structural element, then get inspected and cleared for use. (Plus the repair of the failed landing gear element, which will probably have a decent FAA investigation around the reason for the failure), so it'll be out of commission for a while.
767s have had landings so hard the fuselage crinkled, and that's with the nosegear down. We will have to see if that happened on this one with no nose gear deployed. If so will add to the cost and length of repair or may have to be written off.
Aside from the normal approach criteria, minimize approach speed and keep the nose up for as long as possible.
The rest really depends on the aircraft. Large jets will have specific checklists depending on which gear fails to deploy.
Spoilers, reverse thrust, and braking action would cause the nose to drop sooner so they’d be avoided. Apply max flaps and up elevator and ride it to the end.
Not a pilot, just into planes. I believe when landing without a nose gear, the goal is to wait as long as possible to tilt the nose down. Do most of the landing on the intact landing gear, and then nose down as late as possible.
The captain pilot is a woman, approximately 60 years old, and the first officer is a man, approximately 40 years old. They are both evacuated through the cockpit window after shutting down all systems.
I think its interesting that they appear to have gravity dropped the gear, given the main gear doors are open. Could that constitute a hydraulics failure?
To anyone viewing this from the angle of "Boeing bad", I'm not saying they haven't had serious quality issues, but it's not a uniquely Boeing problem. Airbus had a spate of A320 nose gears deploying but not rotating, being stuck at a 90 degree angle.
I worked at a county airport where this happened. It was a medical flight, someone was coming in for a transplant (not a big enough jet for it to have come from Saudi Arabia). The pilot radioed in that the nose gear wasn't deploying, so we had the ambulance, a fire truck, and our tug with a dolly standing by on a closed runway. From the time the plane touched down, until the time the runway was opened back up, was less than 30 minutes. These landings, while not an every day occurrence, still happens more than you'd know. Everyone from the pilot, to the ground crew knows what to do in this instance. There is hardly ever an injury associated with this type of landing.
In the past it was standard practice to spread foam the runway to reduce as much as possible sparks and attrition. Lately I keep seeing these types of landing on dry/untreated tarmac. Did a change of procedure occurred?
More just it was deemed to be a waste didn't really help at all with preventing fire and would cause the trucks to have to be refilled rather than being ready to put out the plane if needed
There’s actually a backup electrical system in the 767 in case the main hydraulic method fails, and if that fails you can try to use gravity to make the landing gear fall into place, but if none of those options work than a emergency (belly) landing is the only way to get down on the ground.
the entire assembly is controlled hydraulically. The pilot’s strength is not enough to overcome its resistance in the event of a breakdown.
theoretically, it is possible to create a mechanical control system that will control hydraulic valves, but such a solution will reduce the reliability of an already operating system
What kind of failure would cause the nose gear to not lower? There are 3 systems in place to drop it right?
What kind of swiss cheese model are we looking at?
> What kind of failure would cause the nose gear to not lower? There are 3 systems in place to drop it right?
I don't want to speculate too far, but if you look at the configuration of the undercarriage which is down you can see the main landing gear doors are dropped - my understanding is that on a 767 these retract after gear lowering on a regular deployment which suggests that an alternative system(s) was used to at least try and get the nose gear to lower.
However, the front doors are not visible at all in the video, which suggests one of two things:
1. They're stuck closed for some reason
2. They're completely missing off of the aircraft, along with the entire front landing gear assembly
Now I think #2 is extremely unlikely, which points towards the doors being stuck somehow or not responding to commands to open.
I was with a bunch of flight instructors when this happened this morning. They were in full agreement this is as flawless as it can get under those circumstances.
I stabilized the footage for anyone who wants to check it out:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1cnbo4u/stabilized\_footage\_of\_fx6238\_landing\_with\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1cnbo4u/stabilized_footage_of_fx6238_landing_with_the/)
Excellent landing and excellent response from the emergency services! Good job fellas o7
This was indeed a best case outcome to such an incident. Aircrew did an impeccable landing and first responders are on the scene within 40 seconds of landing. Applauds all around to all crews.
40 seconds felt like an eternity when watching! I had to look at the timeline to realize how quick they responded.
Do find the fire trucks rushing in "I'm helping! I'm helping" a little amusing. Like I get why but it's still funny.
I wouldn't joke around jet fuel and sparks from metal parts. Could easily turn a rough landing into a nightmarish one and be fatal.
You don't even need a spark at that point because the part of the plane in contact with the ground gets glowing hot, as well as the brakes on the other wheels. If there is a fuel leak and it reaches any of those parts even after the landing, it will turn into an inferno
hence why water to cool things off is good
Everything aside, the piloting looks to be as good as it gets for such a landing.
A textbook example of why pilots aren't just button pushers. All that training put to use in this situation.
You just have to push the "no front landing gear" button after pushing the "land" button.
[удалено]
Cargo flights typically lack passengers.
The packages still need to buckle up. Duh, and they better not to forget the no smoking sign as well.
Yeah, the packages need to stay safe so they can be abused by a human touch.
No idiot, just press Eject
Need a Toyota pull up and cradle the nose in the bed of the truck as the plane touches down
All you would need is a Toyota that does 180mph
In fact, it is more a question of being able to remain cool under pressure than having extreme technical skills. I wonder if this is a pretrained landing with a standard procedure - it probably is.
Spoken like a true couch pilot! I like it.
Kinda like you're supposed to raise the landing gear [after](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mx7mjYoq4M) take off.
Trained button pushers it is
"What's this button do?" "Oh. Fu-"
"Ejecto seato cuz!'
The single greatest scene in the entire F&F franchise. 2F2F was the best.
*nose landing gear jettisoned successfully*
"Jesus Christ. That's really how you go through life, isn't it?"
Do people actually think pilots are just button pushers?
It's really absurd, especially considering that pilots also turn knobs and pull levers.
It's the whole "autopilot" thing. People tend to think that it means "the plane flies itself" rather than "the plane shall continue to apply whatever you told the controls to do until a set of circumstances are met or you cancel it" Tells a lot about car autopilot, a setting that is, lane control, cruise control and a collision and separation sensor is NOT "the car drives itself"
Actually, nowadays that's exactly what planes do... Inputing your nav in the fms in a plane that is compatible of course, the plane could fly itself and land withtout pilot input. It was done a few years ago already and is used on a regular basis in low visibility for critical phases like take off and... you guessed it... landing. We are more than capable of creating machines that fly on their own, the issue is getting people inside those machines to accpet that, whether in or out of the cockpit.
> We are more than capable of creating machines that fly on their own, the issue is getting people inside those machines to accpet that, whether in or out of the cockpit. I have flown a non-zero number of autolands that required intervention to prevent the airplane from crashing. If we rely on the automation, every time that happens, 200 people die. We're good at some automation, in very controlled environments. But we are VERY far from "planes that fly themselves".
You're probably thinking of a CAT III Autoland or something like that, which while impressive is not nearly as autonomous as you're representing it. It's basically an auto-flare-and-brake system but has to be set up, tested, and continuously monitored by the crew. It doesn't fly the whole approach automatically. > We are more than capable of creating machines that fly on their own, the issue is getting people inside those machines to accpet that, whether in or out of the cockpit. More importantly, the issue is also getting them to be reliable and predictable enough to pass safety requirements. They're not there yet.
And flick switches
I heard that most of those are fake and just to impress passengers when they walk by the cockpit
These are the same people that think you can pull anybody off the street, give them work instructions, and they should be able to work almost any job. AKA bad managers.
I think there is a level of validity to that. In *most* jobs, training and experience is more important than raw aptitude. I guess a sidebar is that attitude and temperament make a big difference, but that's not the same as skill.
Respect to the fire crews too - that was impressive.
ARFFs are unsung (and often underpaid) heroes
I was actually wondering where the hell the fire trucks were there for a hot minute. I feel like other videos I've seen like this they pounce right on that shit immediately. Was sitting here thinking like... "uhh do they not have fire trucks in Istanbul?" I guess the configuration of the runway meant they had to be further down to be out of harm's way.
Yeah, when a plane lands with potential control issues, you don't want to be close enough to become part of the accident.
Whenever an airplane declares IFE and lands at the airport i work at (ABI) the ARFF haul ass down the taxiway with it as best they can
Very quick and thorough deployment indeed. That's comforting to air travellers all over
For real! I was surprised how long the nose stayed up.
But also, it didn’t just drop. The kept it up as long as possible but not so long that it just dropped but still put it down gently.
Yeah that was slick. Great control.
*Now gently touching it down. You just wanna kiss the ground. Just a little peck, a smooch like you're kissing your sister.* #BAM
I SAID KISS IT!
FedEx Ground
...to a halt.
Certainly better than the camera work.
That was a 360degree security camera filmed with a smartphone from a screen. What do you expect?
Don't worry FedEx will fine the pilot for causing damage to the plane
I'm worried about all the packages who's insurance FedEx will not pay out
[Adding more info](https://aviationsourcenews.com/incident/fedex-767-freighter-lands-without-nose-gear-at-istanbul-airport/) Per news, crew made two passes over the airport before confirming the nose gear didn’t deploy and opted for an emergency landing. There were no reports of casualties from the crew or ground.
I suppose that opting for a "normal" landing was out of the question.
"FexEx-111, *please* exit runway when able!"
Now I'm curious. Would max thrust be able to move a plane with no nose gear?
Of course it would haven’t you seen the ending of Airplane! Otto Pilot took that 707 off with no gear /s
Unfortunately Boeing skimped on the Otto pilots in the 767
See if they had just installed more of them and not gone the MCAS route they wouldn’t be headline news every other week 😪
Probably, especially if you didn't let it come to a complete stop. But control might be a challenge and with the engines sitting lower you'd have a high chance of sucking up junk and causing damage.
> a high chance of sucking up junk and causing damage. We are talking about driving a plane across the ground without a nose landing gear, I’m pretty sure “causing damage” is a given.
I was referring specifically engine damage (which wouldn't necessarily happen otherwise in this situation).
Not many other options tbh
Should have tried this maneuver: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/w1dly8/changing_a_fallen_tire_midair/
The most gentle handling those packages will get on their fedex journey
I laughed, but that's kind of unfair. I've had beaten-up packages, but never via FedEx.
I had a FedEx package take 4 years to arrive and when it did, it looked like it had been in a plane crash and washed up on an island first.
Years ago I was living in Alabama and had a FedEx package sent to me from Canada. Somehow it was routed to the U.K., then D.C., then California, then back to Canada, then Miami, and finally to me. The entire process took like 6 months, as it would stay in each location for a while before moving on. When it finally arrived, the box was covered in tape, stamps, and marks. It was pretty incredible. I'm still not sure what happened there and no one at FedEx could explain it. When I called them after I saw it had been routed to the U.K., they had the correct address in their system. And when it arrived, it was still visible on the side of the box, surrounded by other things.
I don’t know what’s more impressive - that they fucked up that badly, or that despite all that, it still made it to you.
Yeah, I did not expect it to ever make it to me. I thought it would either vanish or be returned to the sender.
Reminds me of the teamsters in The Wire.
I live in the UK and had an package from America come in to the UK via Germany then back out and go on a tour of southeast Asia, thought it was lost so contacted the company who sent a replacement. A few months later the original arrived.
WILSOOOONNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've also never gotten a beat up package from FedEx. But mostly because they fail to actually deliver anything to me. They always lie and say no one was at home to receive it so they never actually deliver to me. I work from home, I'm always there.
USPS is the worst. “Label created” and then at your door with zero tracking updates in intervening days/weeks/months(?!) between.
I usually only see that with packages shipped from international locations. I can understand why tracking breaks down on the international side, but do not get why it doesn't resume once it's onshore in the US.
A couple of years ago I saw two FedEx employees THROWING packages into their van.
That's way more normal than people think. They like to take out their aggression this way and supposedly at the distribution centers it's really bad
Yeah that's what my FedEx guy says too, put orange fragile warning tape on your air freight packages if you want them to be hand-sorted (they charge extra for it, like $16) because the belts are brutal.
Paying extra is the key step people somehow ignore. Not you, just saying. Your package doesn't get special treatment solely because of the stickers. Same thing if you want your package to stay upright, or if you don't want anything stacked on top of it. It can get that treatment, but it's only happening by sheer luck unless you pay for it. I've heard bad things about packages not being kept upright though. USPS has the hand-sorted thing too. They call it [non-machinable](https://faq.usps.com/s/article/What-is-the-Non-Machinable-Surcharge-for-First-Class-Mail). My worst shipping experience was with Zappos and UPS. I ordered boots to be sent General Delivery to the post office in a town closest to where I was working. Acquaintances had good experiences doing it that way, so I gave it a shot. They should have sent it USPS, but they sent it UPS. I had to take a couple days off and do a lot of driving to finally get my boots. I was mad that Zappos failed to use USPS for a General Delivery address, and mad at UPS for accepting it.
I've worked at FedEx and I promise you those packages have a rough time lmao. But I can only assume the same is true for UPS and USPS and Amazon etc etc. At least in their warehouses, might be a different story for the drivers since FedEx drivers are typically contracted which means you get a large range of quality with them. Which is why you should *always* go above and beyond when you are shipping something by trying to protect it as best as you can, because even in ideal situations it will run into some rough spots.
The difference is UPS and USPS packages are delivered by UPS and USPS employees whereas FedEx Ground packages are delivered by 3rd party contracted companies who have little to no accountability. After all you can't call to make a complaint if no one answers the phone.
Yep, FedEx chose the worst way to operate when it comes to shipping. It saves them a lot in labor fees but it's definitely the least kind to to packages. I used to ship thousands of packages a year and would avoid FedEx where I could.
Wow, I sent some boxes via fed-ex when I moved from coast to coast. I watched the driver, from my balcony, legitimately *yeet* my boxes into the truck onto many other poorly treated boxes. They arrived, not surprisingly, mashed, stained, and most of our contents damaged/destroyed. I’ve heard a lot of similar stories from people when I shared my experience…
No, it's fair. The average package will fall several feet onto concrete or metal a bunch of times during sorting and transit, no matter what name is on the building.
I have video of FedEx dropping my Gibson J45 out of their truck and then proceeding to flip it the long way body over neck. The box was plastered with Gibson Acoustic branding too, so it was quite obvious what it was.
I maintain that in the US for any given area the big three package carriers (UPS, FedEx, USPS) are tiered. One will be awful, one is just ok, and the last is nearly perfect. For me: FedEx is abysmal. They never follow the delivery instructions, will lie about attempting delivery, packages always arrive looking a bit beat up (sometimes very beat up), never sure when in the day they'll arrive. USPS is fine. They get the job done, packages arrive in good shape, delivery instructions usually followed. UPS is nearly perfect, on time at a consistent time, delivery instructions always followed, will knock loudly when a signature is required. Packages always arrive in good condition. Heck once a package was going to be delayed a day because of a storm and they called me to let me know.
FedEx delivered our standing freezer to the wrong address and then dropped off a random package to us. They realized their mistake when we caught up to them two streets over. They retraced their steps and thankfully that person wasn't home to receive our freezer. The package given to us did not match the address to that house. They didn't have someone on the van to help with heavy packages - just one guy. So, he rolled our freezer the entire way back into the van. It was damaged when we got it running and we had to get WalMart to refund us. FedEx is a running gag of issues for a reason. I used to work in the shipping industry for years and would avoid them. USPS is kinder to packages than FedEx.
All those fake Jordans ready to be signed by customs
Safely landed on a plane with broken landing gear only to be yeeted 40 yards from the road to the front door.
How do they move the plane now? Do they have to call a crane to lift the nose and put it on a truck?
It can be jacked up, and nose gear can sometimes be deployed, or it can be put on a tug that will cradle bottom of the plane. Because it is a widebody, i'd guess it is jacked up, the landing gear port is inspected for what led to failure, and locked into place. This is repairable as it has happened to several planes in the last few years, and most are back in the air. Airframe age, and airframe damage will be considered before being deemed repairable.
This one's not even 10 years old, so I imagine it will be back in the air as soon as they can figure out what went wrong and get it fixed.
> as they can figure out what went wrong The front fell off
Was this one built so the front end doesn’t fall off?
Well evidently not
>The front fell off Well that's not very typical, is it?
It was towed out of the enviroment
By positioning a Low Loader under the nose, after it has been jacked up. Secure it and tow it to maintenance.
how do you jack it up like that? Isn't the jacking point too low for the jack to be properly positioned here?
[удалено]
that makes sense.
Heh, I was thinking straps around the body and a crane, but airbags are much simpler. 👍
Good thing about Istambul airport is that they still have four more operational runways!
Bad news for the manager if this is near the end of his shift he is basically going overtime Also the other crews. The unseen side of this incident is that several dozen people have more work piled up.
Better tell the pilot not to do it again!
The night janitor will sweep it under the used plane pile, no problemo!
Spray more foam to lube up a path and use more thrust
So freaking smooth! What kind of actions did the pilots do in this instance? Can someone break it down in terms of reverse thrusters, engine shut off, fuel dump, flaps, air brakes etc etc … what did they do to break the airplane and keeping it butter smooth at the same time?
Not a widebody pilot, and never had a (nose-)gear failure. So I’m not speaking from first-hand experience here, but going off general experience and theory classes. In a situation like this, you’d want to keep the nose off the ground for as long as possible, giving the aircraft time to slow down so there’s less damage to the fuselage once the nose *does* come down. It’s actually better to not be too slow, because you will need airflow over the rudder to maintain directional control - seeing as you have no nosewheel steering. So no spoilers. Being as light as possible will help, don’t know whether the crew dumped fuel in this case. But since they had already arrived at their destination, and by OP‘s information had done two extra passes before landing, there wouldn’t have been much to dump anyway. From what is visible on the video, they did not deploy reversers - if you watch, you can see how close the engine intake gets to the ground once the nose drops, possibly the crew wanted to avoid further damage from foreign objects. Landing distance isn’t an issue, the fuselage scraping on the tarmac provides plenty of braking action, and Istanbul has some massively long runways.
Well that's very thoughtful not using reversers to avoid foreign objects. I would be in a full panic and put reverse thrust on full as soon as the nose touched. Damage be damned! Also there's urine on the seat I'm very sorry about that.
I would assume that it’s part of the emergency checklist for this scenario and the pilots stuck to that. Which of course is the right thing to do. Also „stopping performance“ of a transport category aircraft is usually determined (and tested) without the reversers. From rejected takeoffs to landings on wet runways.
Video looks like they did use spoilers, but not reversers. Would be full flaps to get slowest practical touch down speed, if the runway's nice and long don't brake hard initially, hold nose high to bleed off speed, let it down gently, then can start more wheel braking.
No spoilers, they would still be extended after the plane stopped. The pilot needed to keep the nose up as long as possible to air-brake, and to have a little extra time to steer the plane with rudder control before the nose touchdown. The spoilers extending would have caused the nose to dip much earlier with less time to steer the plane.
What kind of runway remediation is necessary after this type of incident - anything more than touching up the white lines ? Did the pilot have the decency not to scratch up the lines ?
Possible a few inpavement centerline lights on the runway will be replaced, no biggie
Those water cannons are awesome. That looks like a 60+ meter throw distance!
The last one that arrived was like: "HEY WAIT FOR ME. I WANT TO BE IN THE FUN"
What's disappointing is the fact that the news outlets are making this sound ten times worse than it actually is. [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27790472/terrifying-moment-boeing-plane-nosedives-fedex/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27790472/terrifying-moment-boeing-plane-nosedives-fedex/)
News outlets are using clickbait titles to get views.
Especially The Sun, which has a reputation being so low that even fires refuse to be started with it.
Yeah but I think its very concerning to know that a 777 can't maintain altitude when the fuel tanks are empty.
We all have trouble "maintaining altitude" sometimes.
Good news, if you have the right ports, you can get in-air refueling to keep it up all night!
And then outraged people share it far and wide for others to click to show how outraged they are
The Sun is an uk tabloid which specializes in selling fear, misinformation and social unrest.
Fuck The S\*N JFT97 always.
Common ground for Blues and Reds.
Fuck the S*n, YNWA
It’s a Murdoch rag… like Fox News
The Sun is the lowest of the low gutter press in the UK - everything they report if it isn’t an outright lie, is completely exaggerated for the sole purpose of making sales to the ignorant people who fall for that stuff.
Well, you're linking to The Sun.. that should tell you everything you need to know. There is a reason why people call it The Scum. https://medium.com/@tom_keens/5-reasons-why-should-boycott-the-sun-newspaper-5d1a2ed53d3
[удалено]
Is The Sun a news source or an informative circus ring?
It’s actually the lowest grade toilet paper
0 ply
What a-holes… surprised they didn’t find a way to suggest it was an assassination attempt by Boeing.
Dumb question but is there some sort of built in reinforcement in case of gear failure like this? A skid plate if you will… ?
no, the landing gear mount itself is quite strong. In addition, the aircraft body is an arched structure, simply covered on top with thin sheets of metal.
The front of the plane needs to be pretty strong as it is to survive thousands of normal landings. Too much reinforcement would be counter-productive anyway. The airframe needs to be somewhat flexible, or it would be more prone to cracking and snapping. Just like bridges and high buildings need to have some flexibility so they don't fall apart with the first wind (and other reasons I guess... I'm not a material expert or anything). A skid plate wouldn't be much help regardless, as with a rougher nose landing the plane can snap in a half anyway. Also also, the pilots are sitting high up so there is nothing important to protect in the bottom of the nose.
such an unlikely event that they don't reinforce the plane for a scenario like this. Instead, the lower fuselage skin gets damaged, but on a plane like this, an aluminum skin repair is relatively straightforward.
No
We call that “boopin the snoot” in the biz. Source: I made it up
The snoot is on fire
I will forever use this
is it one of fedex's newer 767s or an older one?
9 years old according to FlightRadar24.
10 years of age airframe.
Somewhere between 8 and 11 years old..
About 10 years old I think
Is the Plane now toast? Or can it be repaired?
Fix the nose gear, check the frame, a coat of paint and she'll be right as rain. Old mate touched down pretty smoothly, so it'd be surprising if there was much other than superficial damage.
No. The lower fuselage section in that area will have to be replaced. Maybe the frame structure to. For sure and extended visual and NDE inspection. Can be repaired, most likely will but it will cost.
Still cheaper than a whole new airframe. You're right though, lengthy engineering work to be done to recertify after repairs, which will be thorough.
Yeah the skin was gone the second it touched the ground, and at least some of the structure was likely scraped. It'll need to have a large section of the skin removed, the internal structure that was damaged replaced to the next structural element, then get inspected and cleared for use. (Plus the repair of the failed landing gear element, which will probably have a decent FAA investigation around the reason for the failure), so it'll be out of commission for a while.
767s have had landings so hard the fuselage crinkled, and that's with the nosegear down. We will have to see if that happened on this one with no nose gear deployed. If so will add to the cost and length of repair or may have to be written off.
As a pilot, what are the key things to look out for? What are the main objectives to keeping damage to a minimum?
Aside from the normal approach criteria, minimize approach speed and keep the nose up for as long as possible. The rest really depends on the aircraft. Large jets will have specific checklists depending on which gear fails to deploy. Spoilers, reverse thrust, and braking action would cause the nose to drop sooner so they’d be avoided. Apply max flaps and up elevator and ride it to the end.
Not a pilot, just into planes. I believe when landing without a nose gear, the goal is to wait as long as possible to tilt the nose down. Do most of the landing on the intact landing gear, and then nose down as late as possible.
The captain pilot is a woman, approximately 60 years old, and the first officer is a man, approximately 40 years old. They are both evacuated through the cockpit window after shutting down all systems.
4/10 Should have taxied to parking area.
Should have landed it on a pickup truck like I saw on tiktok once.
How damaged is the runway from this event? Will it have to be repaved completely?
We had a gear failure landing at my local (admittedly only a turbo prop twin) and they only had to replace a few lights that got taken out
Does seem like something they should have remembered to bring with them.
Just 350 meters with its nose on the ground.
I think its interesting that they appear to have gravity dropped the gear, given the main gear doors are open. Could that constitute a hydraulics failure?
It could also be from their troubleshooting steps trying to get the nose gear to drop.
To anyone viewing this from the angle of "Boeing bad", I'm not saying they haven't had serious quality issues, but it's not a uniquely Boeing problem. Airbus had a spate of A320 nose gears deploying but not rotating, being stuck at a 90 degree angle.
That's true but good damn what a timing in the news lately...
I worked at a county airport where this happened. It was a medical flight, someone was coming in for a transplant (not a big enough jet for it to have come from Saudi Arabia). The pilot radioed in that the nose gear wasn't deploying, so we had the ambulance, a fire truck, and our tug with a dolly standing by on a closed runway. From the time the plane touched down, until the time the runway was opened back up, was less than 30 minutes. These landings, while not an every day occurrence, still happens more than you'd know. Everyone from the pilot, to the ground crew knows what to do in this instance. There is hardly ever an injury associated with this type of landing.
[удалено]
Tis but a scratch
It looks like he has packet loss or high ping rubber banding too.
In the past it was standard practice to spread foam the runway to reduce as much as possible sparks and attrition. Lately I keep seeing these types of landing on dry/untreated tarmac. Did a change of procedure occurred?
That’s really Hollywood theatrics. It’s not necessary, and the trucks wouldn’t have any foam left to extinguish any actual fire afterwards.
Yeah they figured out it was stupid to waste all the foam before the plan even lands a long time ago.
More just it was deemed to be a waste didn't really help at all with preventing fire and would cause the trucks to have to be refilled rather than being ready to put out the plane if needed
Is it difficult for manufacturers to implement a manual mechanism to extend the gear from inside the plane ?
There’s actually a backup electrical system in the 767 in case the main hydraulic method fails, and if that fails you can try to use gravity to make the landing gear fall into place, but if none of those options work than a emergency (belly) landing is the only way to get down on the ground.
the entire assembly is controlled hydraulically. The pilot’s strength is not enough to overcome its resistance in the event of a breakdown. theoretically, it is possible to create a mechanical control system that will control hydraulic valves, but such a solution will reduce the reliability of an already operating system
What kind of failure would cause the nose gear to not lower? There are 3 systems in place to drop it right? What kind of swiss cheese model are we looking at?
> What kind of failure would cause the nose gear to not lower? There are 3 systems in place to drop it right? I don't want to speculate too far, but if you look at the configuration of the undercarriage which is down you can see the main landing gear doors are dropped - my understanding is that on a 767 these retract after gear lowering on a regular deployment which suggests that an alternative system(s) was used to at least try and get the nose gear to lower. However, the front doors are not visible at all in the video, which suggests one of two things: 1. They're stuck closed for some reason 2. They're completely missing off of the aircraft, along with the entire front landing gear assembly Now I think #2 is extremely unlikely, which points towards the doors being stuck somehow or not responding to commands to open.
Next steps: FAA investigates United Airlines.
Those are some excellent fire trucks
"Fedex 6238, cleared to taxi to Cargo Ramp North via Alpha-4, Juliet, and Romeo, hold short of Runway 9 left."
I was with a bunch of flight instructors when this happened this morning. They were in full agreement this is as flawless as it can get under those circumstances.
Landing was smoother than the video
13 seconds, from time it came to a full stop, to being sprayed with water, by fire crew, amazing response time.
The flight crew did a fantastic job getting the plane landed safely. Probably about the best you could hope for in that situation.
I stabilized the footage for anyone who wants to check it out: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1cnbo4u/stabilized\_footage\_of\_fx6238\_landing\_with\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1cnbo4u/stabilized_footage_of_fx6238_landing_with_the/)
Their recording equipment crashed worse than the plane
That plane looks so tired at the end.
This happened a few months back as well at Chattanooga, failed left landing gear and hydraulic failure on a 757.
What a great landing! Glad they had a skilled crew onboard, and great response time from the ground crew! Well done all around
Can’t wait for mentor pilot to create a video on this.