"Flat tire" vs "blown tire" legality
 

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?

Sounds like a MX thing. You probably couldn't tell from the cockpit anyway, unless you heard a loud bang.

If you land on a flat tire, it will probably look like a blowout by the time you roll out.

Its a MX and Airport Ops thing. A blowout implies shrapnel, which requires much more detailed inspections of the airport surfaces and the aircraft. Remember the Concorde accident?

Ah, okay that makes sense. Yeah, concord is what came to my mind!

Thanks.

So I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night.
Mr ATC how are you supposed to tell the difference from the cockpit upon landing?
Any event should be treated like a blowout until proven otherwise.
Imagine the plane behind you heading for the weeds because of FOD?
Great example again of Mr (or Mrs) ATC knowing best....again.

The best way to avoid liability is to be as unspecific as possible on the recorded lines. "Maintenance issue, equipment malfunction, etc." Out of an overabundance of caution I would prefer not to move the aircraft until it is inspected.

It of course stinks that this level of caution is necessary and ambulance chasers ruin everything they get near but it is something all professional pilots must consider, especially before they arrive at their 'destination' employer.

It is disturbing if the tower controller's main objective was to avoid needing to ask ops for a runway inspection.

I think we've all observed, at one time or another, controller behavior driven by "operational convenience".

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

A lot of safety items are inconvenient, yet we do not sweep them under the rug. Wisdom plus best knowledge known is what one uses.

Great advice for sure

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.

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