Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2020, 10:36 PM   #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,572
Default

Quote:
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  
Old 08-31-2020, 09:12 AM   #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 4,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joepilot View Post
The two basic causes of aircraft tire blowouts are hot brakes and FOD like in the Concorde accident. Tires can also blow from under inflation heat buildup while taxiing. Some aircraft actually have a taxi distance limit after which you have to chock the wheels and let the tires cool off. This limit would normally only be reached if several runway changes occurred while taxiing.

The USAF lost a C-5 during an air refueling training mission when a tire blew quite a while after takeoff, and started a fire in the cargo compartment. It was determined that one of the brakes had been in full antiskid braking mode since initial taxi and thru takeoff. With 24 braked wheels and fairly light weight it is not really surprising that nobody noticed. Brake temp gauges were installed after this accident.

Joe
Are you sure about brake temp gauges being installed? I flew it it for 17 years, never had a temp system. The only case that fits your description was the Clinton-Sherman accident and that was 40+ years ago.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 08-31-2020, 05:40 PM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
joepilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Are you sure about brake temp gauges being installed? I flew it it for 17 years, never had a temp system. The only case that fits your description was the Clinton-Sherman accident and that was 40+ years ago.
Yes, that is when I was at Altus for C-141 A/C upgrade training. I was told that the gauges were to be installed, but no personal knowledge. An instructor had us fly over the accident site at a legal altitude, and it was amazing how far the debris field stretched. The landing gear was left at the road embankment a little past the end of the runway, then the tail section broke off a little later. The fuselage and wing continued for maybe another 1/4 mile or so, shedding pieces, and the cockpit section then separated forward of the wing and continued another 100 yards or so. All crew members exited out the top escape hatch, with no noticeable injuries. There was no fire, and the fuel remained in the wing tanks.

Tough airplane, good pilot, although there is speculation that he mistook Clinton Sherman Munipical (3,000') for Clinton Sherman AFB (13,000').

Joe
joepilot is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:10 AM.