Blown Tire on T/O
03-03-2018, 07:51 AM
#11
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,186
OK, so if you knew about it immediately, don't pull the gear up and RTF (overweight or dump/burn nearby). Nobody can really second-guess you on that.
If you found out halfway across the continent and all is well so far, might be OK to continue as long as you'll have fuel to troubleshoot hung gear, etc if needed on arrival. Might make sense if the destination is a large field with plenty of CFR capacity.
If you found out halfway across the continent and all is well so far, might be OK to continue as long as you'll have fuel to troubleshoot hung gear, etc if needed on arrival. Might make sense if the destination is a large field with plenty of CFR capacity.
03-03-2018, 03:50 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,075
I wasn't there. Not my decision. I will not second guess another pilot's decision.
Speaking only for myself:
If I was aware immediately of the tire failure the gear would stay down and rtf after burning/dumping down to mlw.
If the gear was already up when I learned of it and the route was over civilized land, I would carry on, watching systems, fuel, and alternates closely and taking into account ARFF capability at the destination. If the route was over water or uncivilized land, I would rtf or divert to the best alternate before heading into the scary north. 30 West is a little late to realize the problem is worse than you first thought.
A secondary consideration (running a distant second) is availability of maintenance at the landing field.
That's just me.
In this case, the outcome was good, so in my book the decision making was good. A good outcome is the bottom line.
Speaking only for myself:
If I was aware immediately of the tire failure the gear would stay down and rtf after burning/dumping down to mlw.
If the gear was already up when I learned of it and the route was over civilized land, I would carry on, watching systems, fuel, and alternates closely and taking into account ARFF capability at the destination. If the route was over water or uncivilized land, I would rtf or divert to the best alternate before heading into the scary north. 30 West is a little late to realize the problem is worse than you first thought.
A secondary consideration (running a distant second) is availability of maintenance at the landing field.
That's just me.
In this case, the outcome was good, so in my book the decision making was good. A good outcome is the bottom line.
03-03-2018, 07:36 PM
#13
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
No doubt the Concorde crew had a few moments to realize that the blown tire might be more serious than just a blown tire.
The question of the thread didn't ask about a crew that took off and had no idea a tire failed. They knew. They were aware of the problem on arrival and briefed the passengers. The question isn't about a problem that's unknown. It's about a known problem and the decision tree that follows.
The MD-11 has a kevlar plate mounted on the gear, above the center wheels, which sits aft of them when the gear is retracted. The purpose of that plate is to protect hydraulic lines and the reversible motor pumps from damage or destruction in the event of a wheel failure. Without them, a tire failure on the ground or in the well could very easily result in another sioux city event. Loss of all three systems.
A tire may have punctured the underside of the aircraft, penetrated a fuel cell, damaged hydraulics. To know of a problem, have a runway nearby and the chance to return before fuel becomes fire, before a hydraulic loss occurs, or any number of other problems develop, and not take advantage of that runway may be to throw away the only shot.
The UPS 6 crew that departed Dubai and got an inflight fire, was abeam Doha when the airplane began to burn. They could have put in at Doha and survived; the timeline would have allowed it. Instead, they tried to turn back to Dubai and didn't make it. The notion of continuing along one's way after that tire failure (it's just a tire...what could go wrong, right?) sounds innocuous enough. What's that folks say about assumptions?
The question of the thread didn't ask about a crew that took off and had no idea a tire failed. They knew. They were aware of the problem on arrival and briefed the passengers. The question isn't about a problem that's unknown. It's about a known problem and the decision tree that follows.
The MD-11 has a kevlar plate mounted on the gear, above the center wheels, which sits aft of them when the gear is retracted. The purpose of that plate is to protect hydraulic lines and the reversible motor pumps from damage or destruction in the event of a wheel failure. Without them, a tire failure on the ground or in the well could very easily result in another sioux city event. Loss of all three systems.
A tire may have punctured the underside of the aircraft, penetrated a fuel cell, damaged hydraulics. To know of a problem, have a runway nearby and the chance to return before fuel becomes fire, before a hydraulic loss occurs, or any number of other problems develop, and not take advantage of that runway may be to throw away the only shot.
The UPS 6 crew that departed Dubai and got an inflight fire, was abeam Doha when the airplane began to burn. They could have put in at Doha and survived; the timeline would have allowed it. Instead, they tried to turn back to Dubai and didn't make it. The notion of continuing along one's way after that tire failure (it's just a tire...what could go wrong, right?) sounds innocuous enough. What's that folks say about assumptions?
03-04-2018, 07:00 AM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,186
All good points. I'm trying to be agnostic and not second-guess the crew in the news article, since I don't know what they did or didn't know. As others pointed out, they may have found out about the tire via ACARS from company an hour after airport ops removed the debris from the runway. Sounds like potentially different logic depending on what/when you know or don't know, and what's waiting for you at the destination.
03-05-2018, 09:50 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Retired
Posts: 651
From the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual (747), page 8.25:
Tire Failure during or after Takeoff:
"...The crew should consider continuing to the destination unless there is an indication that other damage has occurred...."
"Continuing to the destination will allow the airplane weight to be reduced normally, and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low."
Tire Failure during or after Takeoff:
"...The crew should consider continuing to the destination unless there is an indication that other damage has occurred...."
"Continuing to the destination will allow the airplane weight to be reduced normally, and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low."
03-05-2018, 10:09 AM
#16
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
MD-11 TIRE FAIL (FCOM)
DO NOT RETRACT LANDING GEAR
DO NOT USE ABS FOR BRAKING
[BEFORE TAKEOFF ROLL]
Do not take off.
Reject or continue takeoff, depending on conditions.
Note: At speeds in excess of V1-20, consider continuing takeoff. Stopping performance is degraded with tire failure.
[LANDING GEAR EXTENDED]
Do not retract landing gear.
When ready to land:
Gross Weight: REDUCE AS REQUIRED
AUTO BRAKE Selector: OFF
[END]
DO NOT RETRACT LANDING GEAR
DO NOT USE ABS FOR BRAKING
[BEFORE TAKEOFF ROLL]
Do not take off.
Reject or continue takeoff, depending on conditions.
Note: At speeds in excess of V1-20, consider continuing takeoff. Stopping performance is degraded with tire failure.
[LANDING GEAR EXTENDED]
Do not retract landing gear.
When ready to land:
Gross Weight: REDUCE AS REQUIRED
AUTO BRAKE Selector: OFF
[END]
03-11-2018, 02:14 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 652
John, I agree with you on the blown tire issues. But then I'm on the MD-11 and don't remember the 747 procedures.
[QUOTE=JohnBurke;2542413]
The UPS 6 crew that departed Dubai and got an inflight fire, was abeam Doha when the airplane began to burn. They could have put in at Doha and survived; the timeline would have allowed it. Instead, they tried to turn back to Dubai and didn't make it. [/QUOT
Side note on UPS Flight #6
I do not believe there was time to land from 32,000 ft and 100 miles to Doha.
Finding #59 states, “Captain made a comment mentioning the high cockpit temperature, almost immediately the Captains oxygen supply abruptly stopped without warning, this occurred seven minutes six seconds after the first Main Deck Fire Warning.”
Findings #63 and 64 state, “The oxygen requirement of the Captain became critical, the Captain removes the oxygen mask and separate smoke goggles and leaves the seat to look for the supplementary oxygen. The Captain did not return
In 2 minutes 40 seconds from the first indication of Fire the Captain reports there is no pitch control of the aircraft.
The Captain was dead in 7 minutes and 6 seconds after his 02 Mask failed from burned through lines.
The FO continued to make control inputs until the end. The control column was fully aft when the flight recorder data ended, there was no corresponding elevator movement
may they RIP and the rest of us learn.
[QUOTE=JohnBurke;2542413]
The UPS 6 crew that departed Dubai and got an inflight fire, was abeam Doha when the airplane began to burn. They could have put in at Doha and survived; the timeline would have allowed it. Instead, they tried to turn back to Dubai and didn't make it. [/QUOT
Side note on UPS Flight #6
I do not believe there was time to land from 32,000 ft and 100 miles to Doha.
Finding #59 states, “Captain made a comment mentioning the high cockpit temperature, almost immediately the Captains oxygen supply abruptly stopped without warning, this occurred seven minutes six seconds after the first Main Deck Fire Warning.”
Findings #63 and 64 state, “The oxygen requirement of the Captain became critical, the Captain removes the oxygen mask and separate smoke goggles and leaves the seat to look for the supplementary oxygen. The Captain did not return
In 2 minutes 40 seconds from the first indication of Fire the Captain reports there is no pitch control of the aircraft.
The Captain was dead in 7 minutes and 6 seconds after his 02 Mask failed from burned through lines.
The FO continued to make control inputs until the end. The control column was fully aft when the flight recorder data ended, there was no corresponding elevator movement
may they RIP and the rest of us learn.
03-11-2018, 03:59 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by 742Dash
From the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual (747), page 8.25:
Tire Failure during or after Takeoff:
"...The crew should consider continuing to the destination unless there is an indication that other damage has occurred...."
"Continuing to the destination will allow the airplane weight to be reduced normally, and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low."
Tire Failure during or after Takeoff:
"...The crew should consider continuing to the destination unless there is an indication that other damage has occurred...."
"Continuing to the destination will allow the airplane weight to be reduced normally, and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low."
Maybe MacD just took a potential high speed tire failure more seriously or there is something inherent with the MD gear that makes it a bigger deal on that jet - idk. Boeing certainly doesn't seem to give it much concern from what I can see.
I think Boeing's guidance is milquetoast at best and leaves an awful lot to luck. Sure, the concept of using your gas instead of fuel jettison is valid. But, unless you are unaware of the blown tire, how does anyone get to the point of retracting the gear after takeoff if they knew they blew one on the roll?
"an indication that other damage has occurred" is pretty vague criteria.
A cut hyd-line is probably going to make itself known pretty quickly, but what about other issues?
What indications are there going to be if flying tire parts have damaged flight control surfaces or gear doors?
Is this a FOD event (a.k.a. Concorde) with potential damage beyond what tire rubber can do?
What indications are there going to be to suspect if retraction or eventual extension is going to be hampered by such damage?
Short of getting a chase ship, there's not going to be any way to be certain of the situation. So, in that case, why would anyone assume the best case scenario?
I guess as I've gotten older and hopefully a little wiser, I usually ask myself if pressing the situation, limits, duty issues, fatigue, whatever is really worth it.
03-11-2018, 09:18 PM
#19
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,995
You've got to ask what caused that tire to fail, and what did that do to the rest of the truck? To the engines? To the structure? To tilt? Slow leak out there, insufficient to activate a hydraulic fuse? When the tire failed, what did it do to the other wheels on that axle, or truck? Increased load, increased temperature. Going to put the gear up and have one fail in the well? Pieces hanging off? is the tilt going to be a problem, and is indication and logic going to function if something just catastrophically failed down there?
Once more; we're talking about a known or suspected tire failure.
Various aircraft have interlocks that prevent raising the gear; "safety" catches, releases, solenoids, etc, which prevent raising the gear unless certain conditions are met. Most have checklists under abnormal or otherwise which allow bypassing the gear safety lock.
Doing so is not always the right choice. Nor is raising the gear with a known gear tire failure.
Once more; we're talking about a known or suspected tire failure.
Various aircraft have interlocks that prevent raising the gear; "safety" catches, releases, solenoids, etc, which prevent raising the gear unless certain conditions are met. Most have checklists under abnormal or otherwise which allow bypassing the gear safety lock.
Doing so is not always the right choice. Nor is raising the gear with a known gear tire failure.
03-13-2018, 09:06 PM
#20
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Once more; we're talking about a known or suspected tire failure.
Again, I will point out that while the crew new about the blown tire prior to landing, I have yet to see that they knew of the failure prior to gear retraction. (If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it, and I will gladly retract all my comments).
And even if they had known about the failure which probably occurred at or at least near V1, most of us are so triggered to positive rate, gear up, rig the aircraft to survive the engine failure, that a blown tire around V1 is outside of our normal survival priorities.
Again, I have no idea what they did or didn't know at the time of failure.
But while every six months I rehearsed a V1 cut, I NEVER was given an 80 knots tire blows scenario. How often during a before take off brief do you include a part about tire failure at/near V1?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
