I am NOT Monday-morning QB-ing this crew (even though it's Monday morning).

But wanted to hear other's philosophical thoughts on continuing a transcon after a tire blow-out on T/O. As opposed to overweight LDG, or burning/dumping fuel near the departure field or other suitable divert site.

I'm *assuming* they knew they had an issue since they prepped the pax for a rough LDG.




https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-...rtland-oregon/

 

It is possible a trailing aircraft reported fod which was found to be a tire carcass. Just a thought.

 

While the media would make it sound a safety issue; I’d probably do the same thing, given no wheel well fire indications, the last bit of the roll and lift-off was normal. Better to be light and everybody on the ground ready.

GF

 

Wonder what the thought process was on retracting the gear after the tire failure on takeoff? Surely they did not fly all the way to their destination with fixed gear. I’d like to learn some new perspective from this as well.

 

If I knew I'd had a tire fail during the takeoff, I wouldn't be attempting to retract the gear.

At that point, I don't know what's going on with the gear, what's hanging out, and what damage has been done. I don't know what damage may have occurred to the gear door, to tilt, to brakes, or to the surrounding structure.

Attempting to go cross country means raising the gear; I understand the sentiment that if the weight is going to be lost, it can either be dumped or burned, and why not burn it enroute, but it's not that simple, and it's an unnecessary risk to continue the flight. The other side of the coin is what may happen if one gets down the line, away from the possibility of an immediate landing, and something cascades, or the gear gets stuck in the well because something is hanging out, or there's damage such as a fuel leak from an exploded tire (concorde, anyone?)...imagine getting there and wishing one had simply returned to land.

I'm of the thought, not knowing full circumstances and only faced with a theoretical per the thread question, of leaving the gear in place and returning to land at Newark.

 

Had visions of potential FOD damage to the aircraft (ala concorde).

 

Odds are they didn't know of the failure until the gear was already retracted.Worst case scenario at that point would be damaged gear and/or damaged skin around the gear increasing drag. An increase in drag (damaged skin) would reveal itself when you got to the TOC and checked your fuel on board. If subsequent checkpoint match the flight plan fuel, then odds are you are fine to continue towards your destination while decreasing your landing weight.

I worked at 2 companies where the exact thing happened and each handled it differently. The first company chastised the crew for continuing and the second company used the crews' decision to continue as a great example of maintaining safety WHILE satisfying the passengers.

 

Satisfied passengers are a small price to pay for a cool smoking hole in the ground.

 

Agreed to return if there were other failure indications, especially wheel well firs/overheat, fuel leak, etc. If I recognized it before retraction, or as PM recognized; I’d leave the gear down until I could think it over. OTOH, one of my squadron’s C-5s blew one on take-off, didn’t know until Gander relayed a message from the departure field of a damaged tire on the runway.

Another OTOH, a Global Express years ago had a tire fail, puncture the wing tank and created a large leak and a hasty return. They armored the wheel well inserts as a SN. Made for a good CRM scenario for a couple of years.

GF

 

A little over dramatic I think. In both cases, they were not aware of a tire failure because other aircraft reported debris on the runway. They had no indications of any damage and were flying over land the entire flight. If the situation got worse, they could have diverted at any moment. Instead, they continued to decrease their landing weight while continuing to the destination.

Continuing to the destination is the best/equally best decision to make for most (in terms of actual occurrences in day-to-day operations) abnormal situations.