United 767 strikes tractor trailer and light pole landing in Newark

[FL030]

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/un ... y-airport/

[Eric Janson]

Surprised they didn't hit the concrete wall - must have come very close.

A simple go-around would have prevented this - it's not a difficult manoeuver to fly.

Hopefully we will see a report at some point.

[Flight94]

Screenshot_20260504_134310_Facebook.jpg (153.97 KiB) Viewed 2923 times

Close is right. Wonder what the clearance is on a stabilized approach?

[co-joe]

Surprised they didn't hit the concrete wall - must have come very close.

A simple go-around would have prevented this - it's not a difficult manoeuver to fly.

Hopefully we will see a report at some point.

No, but they did take out one of the street light poles apparently.

[Eric Janson]

There's pictures of the 767 with a gash in the fuselage and damage to one of the tires.

It's also unclear if the photo in post #3 of the 767 and the truck is real or fake.

I'm assuming 3 Pilots in the cockpit - unacceptable standard of operation imho.

[Eric Janson]

deleted

[Eric Janson]

deleted

[Eric Janson]

deleted

[Eric Janson]

deleted

[Eric Janson]

deleted

[FL030]

Video of an Air Canada 787 doing the same approach and coming close to vehicles driving below. This seems like normalization of deviance.

https://www.tiktok.com/@airplanes.vibes ... 7375351070

[‘Bob’]

Let’s see the gender and race of the pilots so we can confirm our biases.

[FL030]

Race or sex does not matter. If the person got their position because of their race or sex that's different.

It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.

[Eric Janson]

There is security camera footage - the still in post #3 is from that footage.

Shows just how close to disaster they came.

[goldeneagle]

There is security camera footage - the still in post #3 is from that footage.

Shows just how close to disaster they came.

The part that has me wondering about that approach. Apparently it's a visual approach, with a relatively tight base turn, and no vertical guidance other than a papi. The road is 1600 feet from the touchdown point, 600 from the threshold. On a 3 degree descent to the touchdown point, that puts the altitude at 85 feet above the runway going over that part of the road. Now do some basic arithmetic. If on the lower bound of 2 red and 2 white for the papi, and in the pre flare configuration, how much below the pilot eyeballs are the trucks of the main landing gear with struts fully extended. Add to that the roadway elevation is above the runway, just how much clearance is there between main gear and the road at that point, keeping in mind that vehicles are up to 14 feet high, and the light posts significantly higher than that.

There is no doubt the aircraft was indeed lower than a normal approach, but my question is more about 'how much lower' ? It may not be that much, and a slight drop easily happens when in the bumpy conditions that winds of 19 gusting 30.

So yes, ended up to low, but, my question is, how much below that 3 degree slope were they, possibly not very much...

[altiplano]

767-400 is a long, large aircraft.
RW28 EWR isn't typically utilized by WB aircraft, what type of PAPI is it? Maybe a P2? ie <25' EWH?

Eye to wheel height may be a factor here if they were on the PAPI, maybe they came in with 3 red, thinking displaced threshold, sorry runway, we'll come in slightly low, but on a PAPI designed for EWH only up to 25' they were very low, wheel height would be around 25' 250' back.

Threshold is about 250' from an elevated road, displaced threshold is less than 500' from the road. How high is the expressway? How high was that truck? If it was a car they may have cleared it...

[Eric Janson]

They were flying the RNAV W approach from what I've read. Puts you on a 3 degree path to pick up the PAPI.

A manual calculation of altitude vs distance is easy enough - I've done this in the past where I think it will be useful.

TCH 60' so no issues with following the PAPI.

[altiplano]

I see now RW28 is a P4 type papi. Was just a thought the runway was primarily used by smaller aircraft it might have been a different system.

Short runway though, was this guy practising a carrier landing?

[Canoehead]

I think there is a note on the Jepps for 28 to stay at or above the 3 degree slope.

Guess they found out why.

[pdw]

“28” is 288 magnetic but TRUE is roughly 275.

The tower landing wind given 320M, is 30 degrees from the right at 12-24kts (this component works out to touchdown headwind of 10kts gusting to 20). Metar PK WND recorded is 36kts before this accident from 270T / 260T after; so that strength of late approach crosswind component (the extended gust higher up) would be 5-15degrees from left of this final course. So a shear-loss of airspeed experienced before the light pole could have been up to 36kts less those 10-20kts.

[short bus]

Oh no... not this again...

[SpyPilot]

Yes, this again.

Now pay attention, okay? I think he might really be onto something this time.

[pdw]

Has anyone seen the cockpit displacement calculation yet for that left crab here? For that left crosswind til late approach? See that it takes it at least up to the 4 deg PAPI usability limit left of this centreline? 35 feet left looks like about 4.( PAPI is right side)

[scdriver]

Has anyone seen the cockpit displacement calculation yet for that left crab here? For that left crosswind til late approach? See that it takes it at least up to the 4 deg PAPI usability limit left of this centreline? 35 feet left looks like about 4.( PAPI is right side)

At the road, if a previous poster’s claim that it is 1600ft from tdz (and PAPI) is correct, 4 degrees offset from centreline measured from the tdz is 111ft laterally. There is no crab angle that a 200ft airplane could be at to exceed that 4 degrees offset limit as I understand.

Man I feel like pdw

[SpyPilot]

Has anyone seen the cockpit displacement calculation yet for that left crab here?

I have.