Plane hits truck

[wilnj]

I’m not surprised. I’ve driven on I-95 south plenty of times, usually inbound traffic is on the longer runway that parallels the highway. And even then it looks like you’re playing a game of chicken.

High winds forced inbound traffic to a shorter runway that is perpendicular to highway traffic.

Any thoughts?

https://apnews.com/article/united-newark-plane-light-pole-bakery-truck-44b1aaa9e0209e3a5a9c62add4c37b43

[berettafan]

I thought planes had a particular glide path to follow. At least that's how it worked in Die Hard 2. If so was this a wind issue? Pilot error?

[rattlsnak]

99.99999% pilot error. (barring some kind of equipment failure which is highly unlikely.

[A930Rocket]

From the aviation thread, the plane hit a light post, that then hit the truck. The light pole also dashed a hole in the plane.

It was everybody’s lucky day, that day

[sc_rufctr]

The driver of the truck was incredibly lucky!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by berettafan

I thought planes had a particular glide path to follow. At least that's how it worked in Die Hard 2. If so was this a wind issue? Pilot error?

Today at most major airports you will have the option of an LPV GPS based precision approach or good old ILS. Either are very accurate. Considering this looked like a severe clear day, I assume the pilot was hand flying the approach and ignoring his instruments, because he was obviously well below the glide slope. Lots of lucky people that day!

[greglepore]

He was flying the RNAV. Not only is it a difficult circling approach but the runway in question is very marginal in length for a 767ER. It was in use due to the crosswinds gusting 30ish across the main runways, but that's within the limits of the 767ER. Pilot flying was likely trying to stick it right on the end of the runway and got a below glideslope.
Agree its almost certainly pilot error, beginning with accepting the runway 29 approach in the first place. Lots of pilots with type experience in that aircraft have commented on social media, for whatever that's worth, that he should have simply said "unable" and used the longer runway with the safer approach

[GH85Carrera]

It just seems astonishing that with all the electronic flying helpers in a modern airliner that it could happen. It would be interesting to hear the cockpit recording. I suspect the airplane was screaming pull up, pull up, and the co-pilot was terrified.

100% pilot error, like the majority of airplane crashes.

[2.7RS]

That what happens when you place light poles and trucks in wrong position

[rattlsnak]

Originally Posted by greglepore

He was flying the RNAV. Not only is it a difficult circling approach but the runway in question is very marginal in length for a 767ER. It was in use due to the crosswinds gusting 30ish across the main runways, but that's within the limits of the 767ER. Pilot flying was likely trying to stick it right on the end of the runway and got a below glideslope.
Agree its almost certainly pilot error, beginning with accepting the runway 29 approach in the first place. Lots of pilots with type experience in that aircraft have commented on social media, for whatever that's worth, that he should have simply said "unable" and used the longer runway with the safer approach

It wasn't an ER, it was a 767-400. Reasonably bigger/heavier than a 767ER. He was flying the Stadium Visual RWY 29 approach which has zero VNAV guidance. Assuming that was assigned to them, they should have requested the RNAV W or the RNP Y, both of which almost mirror the Stadium Visual but have LNAV and VNAV guidance but not sure that would have mattered as they still needed to dive down according to the numbers. RWY 29 does not have an ILS. Don't know what their landing weight was but using MAX Auto Brakes and flaps 30, their book landing distance would have been around 6,400 ft and normal landing is flaps 25 and auto brakes 3 which would have been @ 7,400 and the RWY 29 available landing distance on glide path is 5,541 and 6,501 beyond the threshold, so if they ran the numbers, they were definitely trying to get it on the deck quickly. (those numbers are the legal numbers, they can usually be less using pilot techniques like max manual braking etc.

[bugstrider]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk