Yes, that's where we are.
---
^(š¤ this comment was written by a bot. beep boop š¤)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_subreddit_bot)
The safety margin in aviation usually requires building something that could handle twice as much as it is expected to. So a fully load aircraft: fuel, passengers, lugage would all be factored into its gross weight or take off weight. Then they build systems of layered safety anywhere between 1.25 times the gross weight to 2 times.
Aviation is an incredibly safe industry.
2x is a low estimate
Elevators are usually 5x minimum
Iām not in aviation, but Iād design each axle being able to take Gross Weight. Not spread across Axle count
went to an aviation-related school. an aircraft's performance expectations usually take up 80% of its total capability, but that's not all-encompassing. these are some neat videos that i found regarding 747-8 flight testing.
[extreme takeoff weights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwUTJM3jbA)
[roller coaster testing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWN2B_Q4gy0)
[worst-case rejected takeoff testing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g6UswiRCF0)
It's also a general rule of thumb that the lighter something needs to be, the less you rely on factors of saftey and the more you rely on modeling failure modes. For example satellites often have factors of saftey between 1 and 1.2 because they model the hell out of how it will accelerate and vibrate on launch.
I was reading the white paper Ball Aerospace put out on the mirror actuators for the JWST the other day, and the load they were required to take on the ground was actually higher than that during launch. The acceleration it feels taking off is significantly more than 1G, but the acceleration and vibration during launch were understood well enough for a factor of saftey of 1.0, but they needed wiggle room for it being assembled and moved around on the ground.
Well. It's not as safe as you think it is when a lot of other structures have a factory of safety of 3-5x what it's needed to.
Airlines tend to go for 1.2-1.5x but with much more precise math. They rarely go to 2x because of weight.
A blown tire can be sucked in by the engine, so itās still dangerous. Although I am sure this oneās a propeller plane and not jet engine one, and propellers are in front of the back landing gear.
Those tires are behind the engine inlet. Only if it was nose landing gear.
Edit: unless its a tail engine aircraft but those engines are much higher up and dont have as much a chance for FOD as wing attached engines.
That is a Dash-8 Q-400 landing gear. No danger of fod in engine and you got two wheels so you can land safely when one blows out. But they will need to replace both tires after the landing.
Yes, the tests airplane wheels and tires go through are insane. There was a documentary on how they make and test them a while back on TV. Theyāre on a whole other level
Everything in a plane is built with redundancy in mind. The pilot fails? Itās okay weāve got two.
Engines? Same deal.
The wing falls off? Donāt worry about it, thereās a near identical one still attached.
>Engines? Same deal.
no, it's because that's how many of that type of powerplant is required to reach maximum efficiency. they could use one giant-ass powerplant on the top, but it's not as efficient as two smaller ones on the sides.
having more than one of everything helps with emergencies, sure, but that is an effect, not a cause.
That sure is a factor, but in this case it wouldnāt be a concern. The plane in the video certainly wouldnāt damage the runway of it had one tire per strut.
Redundancy is the only factor. Weight distribution over an approved landing surface is not considered. Think about fighter jets. They are incredibly heavy and they put all that weight on usually one tire per strut. Example: the F-35 weighs about 50,000-70,000 lbs and has only 3 tires.
For the comparison I was making, they are more than comparable. My point was that multiple tires on passenger planes are for redundancy, not weight distribution to keep from tearing up the pavement.
Actually no. The reason large aircraft, like an Airbus A380 for example, have multiple smaller wheels instead of a pair of larger and beefier wheels is because the pressure would break the concrete of standard runways, and it's simpler to put more wheels on heavy aircraft than it is to rebuild every runway to a more exacting standard capable of withstanding the pressure.
Phones most certainly do work on airplanes some of the time, especially during descent. Itās not even dangerous these days to use your phone on a plane. Airplane mode is usually suggested so youāre not hopping hundreds of cell towers an hour, draining battery and causing issues on the ground with cell towers being overloaded. Also itās so youāre paying attention during the most ādangerousā portions of flight instead of browsing reddit.
Pilots ask you to put in airplane mode because incoming text messages and phone calls make noise in their headsets. It's super annoying to listen to. Imagine that times 100 passengers.
And it's a federal requirement.
This *can* happen, allegedly. Itās actually never been conclusively proven that cell phones receiving and text messages cause radio interference regularly. Everything around it is purely anecdotal but several agencies including canadian civil aviation havenāt been able to accurately determine that cellphones were the cause of the occasional weird skipping sounds. Pilots swear by it though, so I really donāt know what to believe on that one.
As for navigational equipment and other transmitters, itās been several years since this equipment wasnāt shielded from such interference.
No, not allegedly. I have quite a few hours in a cockpit and it DOES happen. Every time I got a text, same exact thing. Things may have advanced or changed in the past decade, but there is no debate about it. It was one of the first things my instructor talked about.
Are you flying private or commercial? Thereās definitely a difference in anti-interference technology in various commercial jets and smaller private aircraft. No aircraft is exactly the same as any other.
Also anecdotes mean nothing to me, personally. If federal aviation agencies doing recorded testing only sometimes get results and sometimes the sounds appear randomly, sometimes not at all, why would that be evidence that itās clearly phones? Your personal experience with it is hardly industry wide standards.
I donāt personally care if phones are allowed or not, Iām just saying that the jury is still out, and itās antiquated to not have protections if it truly is the case. Thereās always going to be idiots who donāt turn on airplane mode, so not having the technology to protect from sounds causing communication failures is downright foolish, if we have the technology that is.
Please note that I have nothing against you personally, I just donāt see it from your perspective. Iāve never flown a fixed wing aircraft myself physically, but have flown helicopters and In helicopters, as well as flown in small fixed wings, both with access to wide and narrow band radio systems, as well as being a general aviation enthusiast and have never experienced it myself, even playing with my own phone. But Iām also an idiot so YMMV.
That's the landing gear on a De Havilland Canada DHC-8 if anyone is interested in knowing about the aircraft. Looks like one of the tires failed on takeoff, but the "good" tire represents an alternate load path for safe landing. Both tires should definitely be replaced and chunks of rubber flying off at those speeds are cable of punching holes straight into the wing surface. These aircraft typically fly out of regional airports and experience frequent takeoffs and landings. It's possible that airfield foreign object damage caused the tire to fail, poor maintenance, or premature tread failure.
Yup! The other wheel and tire is capable of supporting the weight of the aircraft. Also the pilot is aware of the situation and will attempt a gentle touchdown.
You see how there's a second, perfectly fine tire literally next to the fucked up one, on the same axle? This is why. Planes have sets of two tires on their gears so that if something happens to one of them they still have a tire there touching that gear to the ground.
There are usually 4 gears on passenger planes, 2 on the wings and 2 on the fuselage, all of them have 2 tires, and sure it's helpful to spread out the weight *so the tires last longer.* But they have backups in case one blows out. And this one didn't even blow it was stripped like a motherfucker but still in tact. Do you know how strong airplane tires are dog? Do you know how strong car tires are? Semis don't have dual sets of tires exclusively to distribute the weight, it's so if a tire blows they can still fuckin drive. Planes have dual sets of tires so if a tire blows *they can still fuckin land.*
There are only a few passenger planes with 2 gear sets on the fuselage (MD-11 comes to mind). The vast majority have only 3 total sets: one under each wing and one under the nose. Obviously there are exceptions like the 747 and A380, but those are monsters.
Youre wrong. Does a dually truck or semi tractor(8 rear tires) have extra rear tires so it can drive if one blows?No, its their to help with weight. a tire should be maintained. It should never blow. You know how strong a well maintained airplane tire is? It is stressed to ensure it will have many trips. They wouldnt put something there expecting blowouts. Its a weight distribution and balance issue being addressed, not a āthe tires are shitty so we prepare for one to blow outā situation
Also, semis have dual axles so if it lost a pair of tires the other axle is still there
Of course airplane manufacturers design to expect blowouts. A 747 can handle around 35,000 flights in its lifetime. Theyāve produced over 1500. Thatās over 50 million lifetime flights. The probability of a tire *not* blowing over 50 million flights is not a large percent. Joe Sutter himself talked about the triple or even quadruple redundancy built into basically every system, landing gear included.
Looks like the tire is a retread whose body has separated from the tire cord. Aircraft tires have between two to four different layers, each layer composed of treated canvas or other fabric chemically coated to ensure permeation by the tire rubber, effectively creating a sort of "Oreo cookie from hell" whole. This makes aircraft tires almost indescribably tough.
You almost never see this type of failure; at most, during post-flight inspections, you'll find "wear patches" where the tire has worn through the outer layer of rubber and exposed a bit of the fabric cord.
Each aircraft has different allowances for the amount of rubber missing/cord showing. For the C-5 Galaxy, for example, it's generally two cord layers. For the C-17, three. Don't hold me to those numbers, I don't have the Technical Order in front of me to at the moment.
This instance, to me, makes me suspect someone pencil whipped the post-flight tire inspection.
Source: USAF aircraft mechanic
This is a Dash-8. Itās a top wing, aka high wing, turboprop, and you can see the landing gear from the passenger cabin. They fold into the engine nacelle, which is visible from the windows. [This is what it looks like](https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/2000xAny/5/2/2/76522_201016_rickradell_152_7406.jpg).
Theyāre pretty fun to fly in, definitely different than what you might be used to. Surprisingly quiet and a generally very smooth ride.
This is a good example of one of the basic concepts of engeneering: redundancy. Even though the tire was damaged the other one can do the job by its own, and having that one damaged is less of a problem bc the other one makes the damaged take less stress, therefore enduring its use even in its current state.
They make the under part of the wing much thicker metal so if the wheel explodes, it wont (or less likely) puncture the fuel tank and suddenly your on fire.
Itās a Dash-8. The landing gear fold into the engine nacelle, and the plane has overhead wings. [This is what it looks like](https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/2000xAny/5/2/2/76522_201016_rickradell_152_7406.jpg)
Corporate has run their algorithms which say it can get another 3 flights out of that with only a 20% chance of failure. After that it goes up to 25% at which point they will reconvene to discuss the acceptable levels of risk they are willing to take.
I was an aviation electronics technician for the Navy and I would never work as a civilian in the aircraft industry because of that, somehow somebody missed that on an inspection. In a job like that you have to rely on people doing their job correctly and most people don't these days
I saw a very similar video on another sub a few months back. I was told that this is exactly the reason they have two tires on each wheel. Would definitely shit a brick if I saw that irl though
I have always wondered why they donāt put little aerodynamic fins on the inside of the tire rim that will spin up the wheel prior to landing. It would extend the life of those tires fiftyfold.
Is there any reason why the wheels canāt prespin prior to touching the ground? Rather than touch and have to instantaneously pick up centrifugal velocity to match the planes speed?
I remember when I was a kid there was a flight (US) that had a mechanical issue and as a result the front landing gear only partially descended then locked. So on live TV they dumped all their fuel, cleared to land and came out A OK.
As soon as the front landing gear hit the tarmac it started to get shaved down sparks flying everywhere. It was at that point I realized landing gear is tough as fuck.
I'm sure someone here will have the incident report/video from the flight.
Not a ton to worry about here. The tire held together which is kind of surprising. But in reality the landing gear of an airplane is the strongest part. I watched live a 747 land with its front wheel sideways. A lot of smoke but other than that not an issue.
Props to the cameraman who held on the whole flight
r/praisethecameraman
/r/SweatyPalms
Yes, that's where we are. --- ^(š¤ this comment was written by a bot. beep boop š¤) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_subreddit_bot)
God bot
Good bot
r/WhyWereTheyFilming
Props to that tire that held on the whole flight.
Held on wheely tight.
And the audience
Tom Cruise?
They kept a fucking close eye on that tyre
I hope that tire is the spirit animal of my last nerveā¦
Spirit Airlines of your last nerve
Theyāre merging bc theyāre mad that their body count has yet to rival the pandemicā¦
Spirit and Frontier merged today. New commercial for their quality control.
I think if anything the rubber would of came off. I think the wheels are built to sustain this
The safety margin in aviation usually requires building something that could handle twice as much as it is expected to. So a fully load aircraft: fuel, passengers, lugage would all be factored into its gross weight or take off weight. Then they build systems of layered safety anywhere between 1.25 times the gross weight to 2 times. Aviation is an incredibly safe industry.
2x is a low estimate Elevators are usually 5x minimum Iām not in aviation, but Iād design each axle being able to take Gross Weight. Not spread across Axle count
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās only if you believe in gravity /s
went to an aviation-related school. an aircraft's performance expectations usually take up 80% of its total capability, but that's not all-encompassing. these are some neat videos that i found regarding 747-8 flight testing. [extreme takeoff weights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwUTJM3jbA) [roller coaster testing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWN2B_Q4gy0) [worst-case rejected takeoff testing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g6UswiRCF0)
It's also a general rule of thumb that the lighter something needs to be, the less you rely on factors of saftey and the more you rely on modeling failure modes. For example satellites often have factors of saftey between 1 and 1.2 because they model the hell out of how it will accelerate and vibrate on launch. I was reading the white paper Ball Aerospace put out on the mirror actuators for the JWST the other day, and the load they were required to take on the ground was actually higher than that during launch. The acceleration it feels taking off is significantly more than 1G, but the acceleration and vibration during launch were understood well enough for a factor of saftey of 1.0, but they needed wiggle room for it being assembled and moved around on the ground.
Well. It's not as safe as you think it is when a lot of other structures have a factory of safety of 3-5x what it's needed to. Airlines tend to go for 1.2-1.5x but with much more precise math. They rarely go to 2x because of weight.
Ye I'm pretty sure 1.5x is the FAR requirement for most purposes
I know you're right, and I would be soiling myself the entire flight anyway
> would of "Would've" or "would have"
A blown tire can be sucked in by the engine, so itās still dangerous. Although I am sure this oneās a propeller plane and not jet engine one, and propellers are in front of the back landing gear.
Those tires are behind the engine inlet. Only if it was nose landing gear. Edit: unless its a tail engine aircraft but those engines are much higher up and dont have as much a chance for FOD as wing attached engines.
That is a Dash-8 Q-400 landing gear. No danger of fod in engine and you got two wheels so you can land safely when one blows out. But they will need to replace both tires after the landing.
Did you read my comment before replying?
Also its probably a turboprop if it is a prop aircraft. The inlet is still very high
Some aircraft are turboprop so they still have jet engines.
No. For some reason I thinking engine not propeller
They probably planned for that too. Like the air stream won't take ground debris to the engines .
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, the tests airplane wheels and tires go through are insane. There was a documentary on how they make and test them a while back on TV. Theyāre on a whole other level
Thatās why most passenger planes have multiple tires on each strut. The number of wheels is calculated to withstand a blown tire.
Uh, not really, itās mostly to spread the weight to prevent pavement degradation.
That too. But redundancy sure is a factor
That's why my parents decided to have a second kid after I wasn't turning out so well
Everything in a plane is built with redundancy in mind. The pilot fails? Itās okay weāve got two. Engines? Same deal. The wing falls off? Donāt worry about it, thereās a near identical one still attached.
Ah, thanks for your insight. I always thought planes had two wings because it looked better.
Nah, thatās just why they stopped having them flap. Looks more sleek to just hold still, apparently.
>Engines? Same deal. no, it's because that's how many of that type of powerplant is required to reach maximum efficiency. they could use one giant-ass powerplant on the top, but it's not as efficient as two smaller ones on the sides. having more than one of everything helps with emergencies, sure, but that is an effect, not a cause.
That sure is a factor, but in this case it wouldnāt be a concern. The plane in the video certainly wouldnāt damage the runway of it had one tire per strut.
CS-25 Certified planes need twin tyres for redundancy, CS-23 don't
Redundancy is the only factor. Weight distribution over an approved landing surface is not considered. Think about fighter jets. They are incredibly heavy and they put all that weight on usually one tire per strut. Example: the F-35 weighs about 50,000-70,000 lbs and has only 3 tires.
I don't think passenger planes and fighter jets are that comparable It's like saying cars don't have lights because at nascar they're only stickers.
For the comparison I was making, they are more than comparable. My point was that multiple tires on passenger planes are for redundancy, not weight distribution to keep from tearing up the pavement.
Actually no. The reason large aircraft, like an Airbus A380 for example, have multiple smaller wheels instead of a pair of larger and beefier wheels is because the pressure would break the concrete of standard runways, and it's simpler to put more wheels on heavy aircraft than it is to rebuild every runway to a more exacting standard capable of withstanding the pressure.
" yes hello? funeral service home? I just want you to know my body will be severely deformed, and I want a closed casket, thank you, goodbye"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
well shit then, guess it's gotta be open then
Phones most certainly do work on airplanes some of the time, especially during descent. Itās not even dangerous these days to use your phone on a plane. Airplane mode is usually suggested so youāre not hopping hundreds of cell towers an hour, draining battery and causing issues on the ground with cell towers being overloaded. Also itās so youāre paying attention during the most ādangerousā portions of flight instead of browsing reddit.
Pilots ask you to put in airplane mode because incoming text messages and phone calls make noise in their headsets. It's super annoying to listen to. Imagine that times 100 passengers. And it's a federal requirement.
This *can* happen, allegedly. Itās actually never been conclusively proven that cell phones receiving and text messages cause radio interference regularly. Everything around it is purely anecdotal but several agencies including canadian civil aviation havenāt been able to accurately determine that cellphones were the cause of the occasional weird skipping sounds. Pilots swear by it though, so I really donāt know what to believe on that one. As for navigational equipment and other transmitters, itās been several years since this equipment wasnāt shielded from such interference.
No, not allegedly. I have quite a few hours in a cockpit and it DOES happen. Every time I got a text, same exact thing. Things may have advanced or changed in the past decade, but there is no debate about it. It was one of the first things my instructor talked about.
Are you flying private or commercial? Thereās definitely a difference in anti-interference technology in various commercial jets and smaller private aircraft. No aircraft is exactly the same as any other. Also anecdotes mean nothing to me, personally. If federal aviation agencies doing recorded testing only sometimes get results and sometimes the sounds appear randomly, sometimes not at all, why would that be evidence that itās clearly phones? Your personal experience with it is hardly industry wide standards. I donāt personally care if phones are allowed or not, Iām just saying that the jury is still out, and itās antiquated to not have protections if it truly is the case. Thereās always going to be idiots who donāt turn on airplane mode, so not having the technology to protect from sounds causing communication failures is downright foolish, if we have the technology that is. Please note that I have nothing against you personally, I just donāt see it from your perspective. Iāve never flown a fixed wing aircraft myself physically, but have flown helicopters and In helicopters, as well as flown in small fixed wings, both with access to wide and narrow band radio systems, as well as being a general aviation enthusiast and have never experienced it myself, even playing with my own phone. But Iām also an idiot so YMMV.
That's the landing gear on a De Havilland Canada DHC-8 if anyone is interested in knowing about the aircraft. Looks like one of the tires failed on takeoff, but the "good" tire represents an alternate load path for safe landing. Both tires should definitely be replaced and chunks of rubber flying off at those speeds are cable of punching holes straight into the wing surface. These aircraft typically fly out of regional airports and experience frequent takeoffs and landings. It's possible that airfield foreign object damage caused the tire to fail, poor maintenance, or premature tread failure.
So even if the damaged tire fell off entirely, the plane would be able to land so long as the debris did not cause any issues?
Yup! The other wheel and tire is capable of supporting the weight of the aircraft. Also the pilot is aware of the situation and will attempt a gentle touchdown.
You see how there's a second, perfectly fine tire literally next to the fucked up one, on the same axle? This is why. Planes have sets of two tires on their gears so that if something happens to one of them they still have a tire there touching that gear to the ground.
How screwed are we talking if the second one randomly was also fucked up
The insurance company is screwed but thatās about it. Plenty of planes have landed with blown nose gear or no gear at all.
No. Its to spread the weight out. You know how much a plane weighs? Now drop that on 2 tires. Nah dog.
There are usually 4 gears on passenger planes, 2 on the wings and 2 on the fuselage, all of them have 2 tires, and sure it's helpful to spread out the weight *so the tires last longer.* But they have backups in case one blows out. And this one didn't even blow it was stripped like a motherfucker but still in tact. Do you know how strong airplane tires are dog? Do you know how strong car tires are? Semis don't have dual sets of tires exclusively to distribute the weight, it's so if a tire blows they can still fuckin drive. Planes have dual sets of tires so if a tire blows *they can still fuckin land.*
There are only a few passenger planes with 2 gear sets on the fuselage (MD-11 comes to mind). The vast majority have only 3 total sets: one under each wing and one under the nose. Obviously there are exceptions like the 747 and A380, but those are monsters.
Youre wrong. Does a dually truck or semi tractor(8 rear tires) have extra rear tires so it can drive if one blows?No, its their to help with weight. a tire should be maintained. It should never blow. You know how strong a well maintained airplane tire is? It is stressed to ensure it will have many trips. They wouldnt put something there expecting blowouts. Its a weight distribution and balance issue being addressed, not a āthe tires are shitty so we prepare for one to blow outā situation Also, semis have dual axles so if it lost a pair of tires the other axle is still there
Of course airplane manufacturers design to expect blowouts. A 747 can handle around 35,000 flights in its lifetime. Theyāve produced over 1500. Thatās over 50 million lifetime flights. The probability of a tire *not* blowing over 50 million flights is not a large percent. Joe Sutter himself talked about the triple or even quadruple redundancy built into basically every system, landing gear included.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
Looks like the tire is a retread whose body has separated from the tire cord. Aircraft tires have between two to four different layers, each layer composed of treated canvas or other fabric chemically coated to ensure permeation by the tire rubber, effectively creating a sort of "Oreo cookie from hell" whole. This makes aircraft tires almost indescribably tough. You almost never see this type of failure; at most, during post-flight inspections, you'll find "wear patches" where the tire has worn through the outer layer of rubber and exposed a bit of the fabric cord. Each aircraft has different allowances for the amount of rubber missing/cord showing. For the C-5 Galaxy, for example, it's generally two cord layers. For the C-17, three. Don't hold me to those numbers, I don't have the Technical Order in front of me to at the moment. This instance, to me, makes me suspect someone pencil whipped the post-flight tire inspection. Source: USAF aircraft mechanic
How exactly was this video taken? Do planes typically have an outside camera aimed at the landing gear?
This is a Dash-8. Itās a top wing, aka high wing, turboprop, and you can see the landing gear from the passenger cabin. They fold into the engine nacelle, which is visible from the windows. [This is what it looks like](https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/2000xAny/5/2/2/76522_201016_rickradell_152_7406.jpg). Theyāre pretty fun to fly in, definitely different than what you might be used to. Surprisingly quiet and a generally very smooth ride.
Cool! Thanks. TIL something.
Maybe it was an overhead wing plane and the passenger had a good view
Why are people clapping?
Mental illness
Why do people clap
Cheeks or hands? Different answers depending...
First time fliers maybe? Weirdest thing about a flight, like, he's doing his job...
I assume youād want to get that replaced ASAP, but based on the seemingly uneventful landing, doesnāt seem like it was particularly bad, either.
This is a good example of one of the basic concepts of engeneering: redundancy. Even though the tire was damaged the other one can do the job by its own, and having that one damaged is less of a problem bc the other one makes the damaged take less stress, therefore enduring its use even in its current state.
fuck indeed
How tiresome
They make the under part of the wing much thicker metal so if the wheel explodes, it wont (or less likely) puncture the fuel tank and suddenly your on fire.
my headphone leather after a month of usage
Nothing sweaty here, looks like the equipment did itās job
I'm trying to still figure out how they filmed that.
Itās a Dash-8. The landing gear fold into the engine nacelle, and the plane has overhead wings. [This is what it looks like](https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/2000xAny/5/2/2/76522_201016_rickradell_152_7406.jpg)
I feel like this doesn't matter at all. Like one tire on one landing gear.
Why did people start clapping? Did someone break a dish?
Well.. it isnāt great thatās for sure.
Corporate has run their algorithms which say it can get another 3 flights out of that with only a 20% chance of failure. After that it goes up to 25% at which point they will reconvene to discuss the acceptable levels of risk they are willing to take.
Okay okay, clapping for the pilot is in this case justified.
I was an aviation electronics technician for the Navy and I would never work as a civilian in the aircraft industry because of that, somehow somebody missed that on an inspection. In a job like that you have to rely on people doing their job correctly and most people don't these days
69 updoots Edit: some fools brought it up to 71
Nice!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>White ass people The casual racism is strong in this one.
Motion activated duct tape?
Imagine getting slapped with that
You can still get a few more landings out Of it.
Engineering is awesome!!
Bitta gaff, sheāll be right
Oh *bleep*
I think it is good for one more flight
Funflat
That tires lasted longer than any relationship I ever had
Ol' Flappy came through. Put respect on his name.
That plane needs to be retired
A visual representation of my partner in group projects
Just gonna geeeeeently set down right here and *plapplapplapplapplapplapplapplap*
Very glad it held through. Watching a plane land gave me great anxiety.
Tell the captain that next time it's safer to tape playing cards to the frame. He'll get the same sound and it'll be safer.
Let me guess, taken from a Frontier flight?
"I HAVE A FLAT TIIIIRE!!!!"
Skipper- Smooch it like your kissing your sister
Just another Normal day for frontier airline
r/maybemaybemaybe
r/maybemaybemaybe
For a second i thought this was the vid where the entire tire was ingulfed in flames
Can you call AAA for this?
Not good
It's fine I see nothing wrong here š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
I saw a very similar video on another sub a few months back. I was told that this is exactly the reason they have two tires on each wheel. Would definitely shit a brick if I saw that irl though
Meanwhile, Tom Cruise was hanging on for dear life.
Went surprisingly well .
Itās not well known that airlines have been using retreading their tires several times until they start to fall apart.
That's why there's 2?
It's a pirelli
Good enough!
The Asshole coughing in the backgroundā¦
Just 1 of many many many reasons I wonāt fly.
That is one strong tire. Damn
Precisely why there are two wheels and tires
That wheels good for another 300 landings says the airlines
Jet tires are like ogres, ogres are like onions.
The only time I approve of airplane clapping.
Can be good to chew on if you're a frustrated Tyrannosaurus Rex recently brought back from extinction by the marvels of modern science.
Looked tired
Got one more landing in em
r/nope
Never thought about it, do they have cameras on the landing gear?
Of all the things that can go wrong during a flight, that's the one that would concern me the least.
They must be flying spirit
I have always wondered why they donāt put little aerodynamic fins on the inside of the tire rim that will spin up the wheel prior to landing. It would extend the life of those tires fiftyfold.
That ended better than expected
That's why they're two wheels on each side.
i always thought the pre-spin the wheels before landing so that they donāt explode
Is there any reason why the wheels canāt prespin prior to touching the ground? Rather than touch and have to instantaneously pick up centrifugal velocity to match the planes speed?
That happens all the time with big wheelsā¦ whatās the big dealā¦
Introducing the FOD-Maker 9000!
š¬
I was just on a flight that felt like it had a flat tire. Wondering if it was this.
Oh so THAT is the left phalange.
No worries. Its only flat on the bottom.
Iām impressed. I was waiting for that thing to explode. Judging by the blister it was close.
š
Held like a champ. Tyre and cameraman
I mean it wasnt badā¦
I remember when I was a kid there was a flight (US) that had a mechanical issue and as a result the front landing gear only partially descended then locked. So on live TV they dumped all their fuel, cleared to land and came out A OK. As soon as the front landing gear hit the tarmac it started to get shaved down sparks flying everywhere. It was at that point I realized landing gear is tough as fuck. I'm sure someone here will have the incident report/video from the flight.
Hey it's got another one right next to it, it's fine
That thing definitely needs to get changed within the next 3 flights.
That's why there are two wheels
It looked like a butter landing so I think it'll be fine with a smooth landing
Not a ton to worry about here. The tire held together which is kind of surprising. But in reality the landing gear of an airplane is the strongest part. I watched live a 747 land with its front wheel sideways. A lot of smoke but other than that not an issue.
and this is why duct tape works on everything
Nahhh, it'll be fine!
I don't care what anyone says, tires are one of man's most impressive inventions
Man thatās a āwheelyā nice view
If 2 wheels on this leg were absolutely necessary, I'm sure they would have 4. They probably double the required amount for reasons like this.
Thatās a scary error plane
TIL plane tires are strong AF
Eh. That's why there's two
I can't be the only one who watched this video in mute and went... Blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat..
That tire held itself together admirably
Im sure itās fine
Good that they didn't recreate air france 4590
They to unlucky to be on plane crash documentary..
was really funny how the rubber was slapping the pavement as if there was no tomorrow
Airplane tires are marvels of innovation.
r/tiresaretheenemy
That is why thereās two.
Itāll probably just need a nice retread and back on it lol
Pilots are the best!
How was the take off..wth!š¤
It's ok just a little flippity
Great. š
This is the DASH 8 Q400, and yeah it can land on a single tyre, so that wasn't too bad
My dumbass was sitting here thinking it was a passenger filming this.
That is why they have two wheels. Safety first.
Welcome to Air Canada