Back to Squawk list
  • 44

United 757-200 suffers significant fuselage damage after hard landing in Newark

A United Airlines 757-200 performing flight UA627 from Denver (DEN) to Newark (EWR) suffered a hard landing, resulting in the aircraft partially skidding off the runway. The fuselage just above the nose gear also suffered significant damage during the ordeal. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Chris B 12
Much better photo here showing the damage. Yup, beer cans for this plane
Very lucky that this planes nose gear didn’t break off or collapse.
bbabis 3
Or go into the passenger cabin.
bbabis 16
Capt. write up: Auto-land is not working correctly.

Maint sign-off: This aircraft does not have auto-land.
I don’t think that one’s going to “buff right out!”
Next article;
“Slightly used airplane for sale. Cheap.”
Spare parts for 1 of the 44 in storage
Looks like one of my flight simulator landings
So was counted as two landings,or three ?
chalet 3
Looks as if it was an awful hard landing: nosegear twisted means that he landed first on that leg, terrible pilot error unless he hit a strong dowdraft.
chalet 4
The wrinkles are worse than if she had to land with all wheels up. The two pilots are doing the sombrero dance before their boss for this is clearly a pilots error.
yup, stick a fork in her, she's done. (that said, there is now a crapload of spares to be put on a shelf in Denver for the rest of their B752 lineup. Might as well make lemonade)
Delta had a Boeing 757-232 damaged very similar to this in 1993 at FLL during a hard landing. They sent a team from the Tech Ops center in Atlanta down for a few weeks and flew the plane home. After some tweaks by Boeing, the aircraft re-entered service. I think the aircraft was ship 678 (N678DL. There is a NTSB report on it.
Agree. I doubt this one will see the torch. Insurance will cover the cost.
Exactly, given the scarcity of 757s and their desirability I would think repair would be the first option unless there is one in storage that can quickly be returned to service.
They have quite a number in storage, from last count last year.
On that particular accident, it fractured the mount and keel beam but the landing strut remained straight. That 1 was hard hit after landing where as this 1 looks like it took bounce impact first.
The nose gear stayed intact and straight on both landings. That is one tough airplane! My point was if the damage is consistent with the Delta event, United may be able to repair the damage. Depends on their evaluation of the cost versus losing the aircraft entirely.
If you look at a few photos of this accident, the nose gear is bent pitched rearward, consistant with landing nose first on 1 of the bounces. The Delta accident was a hard shove onto the runway at speed causing nose gear mount to fracture along with the keel beam. The skin "crinkle" was not near as bad as this 1.
More likely than not, this will be a parts craft and they will, if need be, pull 1 from the 44 in storage.
Rapidwolve interesting observation. The article says there were wind gusts at the time of landing. Maybe one got the plane at a bad moment. That is the best case for the pilots. It is lucky UA has a parking lot of 757s to pick from, but this is a sad way for one to go to parts for sure. Still one tough bird.
Quite often (too often) we see pilots get in trouble not knowing how to handle a bounce landing. I review Flight Safety Foundations recommendations with my crews every company recurrent training. This is important since you can't demonstrate "bounce landing training" in a simulator. You need to determine if it is a high bounce or not. This has be determined immediately because the nose pitches up after the first bounce. The determination must be made whether it is higher than five feet or not.
Suggest you go to their web site and note their recommendations.
bbabis 1
Don't bounce! At this level there is no excuse.
What aircraft are you flying? If it's an A320,A330, B737NG, B777 or B787, and your simulator wont demonstrate bounced landings, time for software upgrade or new simulator.
And the nose does not always pitch up after the first bounce, if it's high. I've seen some bounce back end high enough nose pitches down and front gear takes a hit, then back end slams the runway and blows out tires. (not always).
Will United aircraft cockpits now be fitted with tape measures as standard emergency equipment??
Imagine what emotion
the passengers were experiencing during those last seconds of their flight.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Funny, isn't it? All the usual bashers of "third world" pilots/training/maintenance on this forum are strangely silent when like incidents happen right here in "the West"--and possibly more often..
So now a hard landing is equivalent to crashing and killing hundreds of people? I don't know what you're smoking but it must be some quality stuff!
Read my comment carefully, sir. I used the word "like". So no, I'm not talking about deaths versus incidents. I'm talking about incidents versus incidents. (LIke busting a landing, or landing at the wrong airport etc.? Where were those pilots trained? And what would certain people on this forum have said about that if it happened somwhere else?) I've lived on five continents and I get really tired of the third-world bashing on this forum. Some of the training given elsehwere is in fact more rigourous than in the West. Not all. And the quakity varies not all that differently than in the West. I'm a commercial pilot and a mechanic and a university teacher and I happen to know something about this.
Sorry about the typo. quakity=quality. But quackity might work, actually!
djames225 -4
That "hard landing" could have easily killed people..and the way you phrased it, from the context it was written, anyone who is not a trained US pilot isn't trained properly...smh!
bbabis 2
I agree with your statement entirely rapidwolve, but I think that many people are confusing training with experience. For someone to go from 0 to a jet airline cockpit in a couple of hundred hours, obviously the training is phenomenal. What is missed though is the hundreds or thousands of hours that we here in the west are able to get in small aircraft and the experience that brings. I would rather a pilot get their first actual experiences with thunderstorms, wind shier, ice, high and hot operations, etc... with friends in the back seat of a 172 rather than 150+ paying customers in the back of a Boeing.
My reply was actually to Silent Bob. Yes, flight experience is 1 of the greatest assets before commercial flying, but you would be surprised the number of flight hours many none western pilots endure before getting to handle, or allowed to even think about, commercial. Remember that many middle eastern and African countries are high/hot zones.
Training should include a minimum set of flight hours experience in a small craft like a Cessna 172 or Cessna 421 and be implimented in all countries.
bbabis 3
Here here!
And that should also include rotor craft. You be surprised how many hop in a bigger bird like a 216, because they had training, go through the whole pre-flight session, get it off the ground, wind sheer hits and they drop it on it's skids. "How many hours you got in a R22 or 44?"
Training teaches you to do the right things after you think about it. Experience teaches you you to do the right things instinctively.
bbabis 1
It's a fair question. Every day I hear more and more US flag carrier pilots that I can barely understand. I'm sure they are brought up to some minimum standard of demonstration in the sim but often that deep understanding of basics one gets from many hours in small aircraft just isn't there. Hopefully, we'll hear more about the crew on this adventure.
I was half joking, seems like most did not find it amusing lol, I am sure the crew had 1000s and 1000s of hours, trained through the US military or extensive regional flying at a US regional before coming to the major. The example is that no the US training system, even though probably the best in the world (And the system I trained in and currently train other pilots) is not perfect, and we should not point fingers at other training organizations around the world and say our system is perfect, but instead make what is probably the best system even better.

Ask questions like is the 1500 hours in light aircraft really going to train the best airline pilots of tomorrow, or should airlines be more involved in the training? Current airline training programs/policies. Looking and scrutinizing our current ACS standards. It is very possible this was a new pilot doing their first landing on a 757, a seasoned crew, or it could be a flight control failure for all we know. There is always something new to learn and grow from in aviation, I learn something new on every flight.
djames225 -3
I think you should have quit while say you shouldn't point fingers in 1 breath, and then point fingers in the other. Who is to say the US has the best training system in the world?
Not saying it is and not pointing fingers, but most countries do come to the US due to the structured training environment and relatively not as expensive as in other places. Was trying to say that the top training programs can always strive for better and learn from mistakes rather than pretending to know everything.
"he example is that no the US training system, ""even though probably the best in the world"" (And the system I trained in and currently train other pilots) is not perfect," While I agree training needs to be an ongoing concern and good training always learns from mistakes, again you are making it sound as thou other countries training does not stack up...sorry if it comes across as blunt but it does sting.
And the kicker is getting down voted for asking a simple remark. BTW, it has been shown that to train in the US is more expensive, if you are not living resident in the US and/or an airline isn't flipping the bill.
Fair enough, that was not really my intention to state it that way but I can see how it came across that way. The US system was quick to blame the oversees system which I think was wrong, and my statement was to reflect that it is not perfect here as it is not anywhere, everyone is at risk for loopholes in the system. Learn from previous mistakes to make the future safer and not take the fact we haven't had major passenger injuries from air travel in the US for granted. I am curious where else in the world flying is as available and relatively comparable in price for students to go from zero to ATP without being ab initio.
You make great points...the thing about the training is, not all students can have an apples to apples comparison when it comes to training prices..remember the training isn't just zero to ATP, some want more than the minimum.
You also make a good point about the western system blaming the overseas system...Boeing even stipulated, in the case of MAX, the simulators were all programmed with incorrect software and were flawed, so whether it was here or there, it probably would not have made a difference when it came to using simulators.
Bill and myself had a good couple posts should include a minimum, and not just a couple hundred but closer to a couple thousand hours, of single engine and dual engine small craft flight. Or military flight
Chris B 0
Upclose photo of the extensive damage......He hit the nosewheel hard. Might just be their last landing....
Hard is an understatement..I've seen some nose gear damage and to crinkle the skin like that meant that front forward structure took a whale of a hit...looks like new engine pieces and beer/pop cans time.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

bbabis 0
It looks like a “I thought you were flying“ situation. Hard landing is to say the least. Crash landings often have less damage.
dkenna 0
My understanding is the pilot flying was on her second IOE trip.
Ken Hardy -1
Not a problem that some scab patches and pop rivets won't take care of before the fire sale to some carrier in South American or Africa
He tried to butter that landing. But the butter was straight out of the deep freeze and his bread was the cheapest store brand with no structural integrity.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..