Boeing goes boing: 757 loses a wheel while taxiing down the runway Another day, another incident with a Boeing passenger jet, this time when a landing gear wheel popped off a Delta Airlines 757 while it was waiting to take off out of Atlanta. According to the Federal Aviation Administration's report of the incident, Delta flight 982 from Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport to El Dorado …
I'm saddened to see El Reg reduced to click bait headlines. It didn't lose a wheel according to your article, it just lost a tyre! And I don't see any way Boeing can be held responsible for that. It wasn't (I assume) the original tyre! So I'd be looking at whoever fitted the tyre and whoever regularly inspects the wheels for damage.
Agree - it left Boeing's assembly shop over 30 years ago together with hundreds of others. The default assumption is it is either a wrongly fitted tyre or a tyre fault. With around half the world's jet manufactured fleet and with random incidents happening daily (according to the wonderful Aviation Herald) it's unsurprising that a Boeing jetliner will be involved quite often. Thankfully very few reflect any issue with Boeing itself - even if it should be zero.
I'm usually quite critical of the post-McD management but we must give them and their predecessors a free pass on this unless an investigative authority turns up something unexpected.
In other news several Fords was involved in a collisions today including loss of life ... and even more needed tyre repairs.
Full circle between reality and art...
Michael Crichton's "Airframe", set at a fictional aircraft assembler in southern Cali (pre-Boeing McD?) has discussions between engineers that make clear maintenance is not their problem, especially with regards to certain elements, in this case an engine. In a "breaking news" incident unrelated to the main plot, an engine fan disk bursts, spewing shrapnel through its housing and into the wing and lower fuselage. The "powerplant" engineer gets irate, saying he told that airline not to buy those "piece of s***" engines (from another fictional company) because they had -- you guessed it -- early cracks, but the airframe maker has to install whatever engines the customer wants. As the news names the airframe company, he doubles down screaming THEIR airframe saved everyone from that bad engine, and the smoke was not due to fire (fuel) but hydraulic fluid spewing on to a hot, exposed engine from hydraulic lines in the wing being cut by the shrapnel.
As someone else mentioned bad parts down below: the main story is a combination of a counterfeit (and unreliable -- broken before usual lifetime) part and procedures not being followed (nepotism) combined with lack of proper training. Mix in some airline coverups, vengeful media, and a young VP out to find the truth even if it kills her and it's my favorite Crichton book that I keep coming back to, mainly because it's so grounded in reality, referencing both real and fictional-copies-of-real airline incidents and leveraging heavy on the technology that millions use every day for travel. You'll never look at wing flaps and slats the same way again. (And yes, it's mentioned how the FAA can't keep the airframe certifications lest the competition walk in and take a peek at proprietary design.)
"Airframe" is an entertaining novel, and a quick page-turner. A bit dated in 2024 - the executives have pagers instead of cell phones - BTOYA. While a work of fiction, I have a suspicion it is closer to reality than we would otherwise be comfortable with.
Yes, there is a strong story line about the engines not being made by the manufacturer, and the fuselage actually protects the passengers during an uncontained engine failure. Because the engines hang on a "Norton" airframe, they get the public black eye.
Has Boeing earned their black eye with the Max debacles? Yes, absolutely. However, it seems everyone wants to pile on and land a punch every time something routine happens. When one tire/wheel came off a 32-year old 757, the second wheel & tire was able to safely handle the load. The redundancy is good. Boeing should be getting credit for a good design. Nope, every news outlet has to jump on the anti-Boeing bandwagon and blather about things they don't understand.
It is funny to see the same complaint everywhere, in ever language, and they are all correct.
However some other forums complain about "at least 20 years old" where as even 40 years old is quite common in aviation. Hell, the Screaming Mimi from Riptide is still in active service, and it was already 22 years old when they used it in the series!
Ah yes, the old "by downvoting me you just prove I'm right" ploy where you win either way, or so you'd like to kid yourself.
Of course, in reality- and *every* time someone tries to pull that- everyone else laughs and downvotes them regardless- as much for the clunky obviousness of *that* as for what they were originally going to get downvoted for anyway!
> It didn't lose a wheel according to your article, it just lost a tyre!
I'm sure the passengers are grateful for your clarification.
Hint: Bits shouldn't fall off airplanes, no matter what they're called.
> I don't see any way Boeing can be held responsible for that.
Boeing set the maintenance schedule. If it's insufficient to keep the mechanics toeing the line and the planes airworthy, as it evidently did not, that's Boeing's fault.
Except this is a 757-200, which Boeing doesn't even manufacture any more. It predates current-year boeing by a couple of decades. The obvious cause in this instance is a maintenance failure.
(Yes, I realise you were joking, but it has to be said, just in case someone takes it seriously.)
No the REAL cause is giving too much to so few.
By making gods of the leadership this is the result. Giving too much to too few always ends badly.
Democracy is better than all other systems not because of its good points its better because it limits the power that gets concentrated on the few or one.
By crediting all the good and giving bonuses to leadership you create monters that just fuck everything up. What is needed is giving them less, no more bonuses, they dont even do anything.
The problem is Americans have so brainwashed by the media, from tv, to movies to sitcoms, they all make gods of ceos, even theregister does this, just look at the articles, its almost like only CEOs are equalified or worthy of speaking to the masses.
This concentration of credit and money on leadership is nothing more extremism Extremism in religion, politics and the corporate world are all bad for the same reasons with the same results.
Also has a 757-200
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Force_One
Even after this incident, I'd be happy to travel in a Delta aircraft than one belonging to the Florida man
I don’t understand the pedantry about wheels and tyres.
Are people above (as opposed to the FAA report) saying that just the tyre/tire (just the rubber bit) came off the wheel (generally accepted everywhere as the metal bit that may or may not include a tyre dependant upon use case)? Anybody got a link to “it was just the tyre!”
Either way it’s a bloody big issue for the aircraft, and given its age the people who own it and are responsible for maintaining it (even if that is outsourced) are still responsible. The Boeing bit is just click bait fluff, but then Boeing is now in the departure hall at FuckedCompany.com so people are rightly interested and aware. I don’t fly very much anymore, but I’d be wary of getting in their product these days and would certainly check before booking. I don’t think I’m alone in this.
While I would not dare to speak for Americans as a class, I have noticed a number of times recently that there seems to be a usage of 'tyre' (or possibly 'tire') to refer to both the black rubber bit, and the complete assembly with the metal bit in the middle and the rubber bit around it.
Is it possible that this is simply a case of that usage?
Not American, but American-adjacent. I can testify that "tire' is often used to mean the wheel as well.
We "change our tires" twice a year - snow tires and summer tires. Pedantically it should be "change wheels", but no one I know uses that phrasing.
You don't dismount the tire, you take the rim off the hub and install a new one; a tire is pre-mounted on each rim. This is due to a) mounting a tire is a fussy business, taking much more time than removing and installing nuts, and b) winter often involves salt on the roads which is corrosive, so you want rims which are more resistant than say aluminum alloy.
I presume airplane wheel assemblies are somewhat different due to the mass and speed involved. Anyone in the aircraft maintenance industry care to comment?
"We "change our tires" twice a year - snow tires and summer tires. Pedantically it should be "change wheels", but no one I know uses that phrasing."
That's because the objective is to get a different tire to run on. It's just incidental that the wheel is changed as well in the process.
There's no confusion about what is what, for most people.
Oh ouch. Common mistake, but still: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia
It's important to note this is not a language thing, Colombia is the official word in English just as it is in Spanish. And yes, it's almost the same, but Oakland and Auckland are different cities in very different places, and should not be confused either.
Frequent misspellings aside, Colombia has been officially spelled like that since Colombian independence, at least in the UK already since its predecessor state (nowadays known as Gran Colombia) was officially recognized in 1825. There are several official documents from both USA and UK online referring to Colombia dated over a century ago, but I can'ẗ find any using "Columbia". (Feel free to point counterexamples to me.)
Some other languges, however, use the "u" form, e.g., German "Kolumbien", Finnish "Kolumbia".
You haven't seen the latest then? Apparently whether they're loose or not makes no odds. All they do is locate the plug, cabin pressure holds it in place against the lugs. It only becomes an issue if all four bolts are missing(!), so the plug can move vertically when the cabin is unpressurised, which they were(!!)
According to a whistleblower, Boeing get the fuselages in from Spirit and promptly strip them for final fitout, including removing the door plugs. It's customary to do this without following the maintenance checklists or logging fastener removal/refitting in the maintenance systems, as this gets the job done, the plane out the door and the money in the bank a bit more quickly.
I foresee the largest corporate fine ever incoming. Or I would if I weren't sure that the US government will do its best to prop up Boeing as usual.
To paraphrase an auctioneer: Boeing......Boeing....... <hammer>
How old is your car?
Which one?
The one parked by the side of the house is 6 years old. The one parked in *front* of the house is 57 years old..
(One year younger than me and in better condition. At least when the Moggie gets a rusted wing, you can just remove it and replace it. Sadly, doesn't work with psoriatic arthritis..)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
