View Single Post
Old 08-30-2020, 10:36 PM   #11  
Gets Weekends Off
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,589

Originally Posted by stevecv View Post
Had a flat tire on rollout yesterday and mistakenly called it a "blowout" to ATC. Was later told to be careful on what verbiage to use over ATC because there is a difference with how the FAA/NTSB is supposed to be involved. Can anyone provide a legal explanation here between the two?
Is it that a flat tire is simply a loss of air, and a blowout is the tire actually failing from structural reasons?
In my experience with ATC in the FAA, I don't think it really matters. I've never heard of any distinction being made (as far as affecting what is reported). I could be wrong, I'm not an expert on ATC's rules. I do know that when most anything happens with tower, they file a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR). That eventually filters to the certificate management office (CMO) that oversee's the airline and then the CMO personnel are usually looking to see if there was any information as to why it happened and how to prevent it, such as maintenance related issues or whatnot. You may not even hear about it, despite the fact that it is investigated. This shouldn't be any kind of "adversarial" situation. I don't think using vague words is going to work with ATC, they'll probably get more inquisitive the more vague you are, ultimately still filing the MOR when they find it out (binoculars). Like was said in this thread, either there's shrapnel on the runway, or a flaw in the tire, or maintenance intervals are incorrect, etc. A blown tire is pretty low on the totem pole for this kind of thing, but it's just to make sure there's no systemic issue or bigger issue and that it's just a random blown tire. Those happen.
JamesNoBrakes is offline