B190 Crew insight?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Africa
Age: 44
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B190 Crew insight?
Chaps, trying to find any info relating to towing a fully loaded 1900 every day and the long term effect that this will have on the nose wheel.
Gut feel says it is not a good idea, but I cant find anything to back that up in black and white? Any of you come across this or have any lit on it?
Dog with a bone to pick
Gut feel says it is not a good idea, but I cant find anything to back that up in black and white? Any of you come across this or have any lit on it?
Dog with a bone to pick
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kinda towing are you talking about?
Everyday aircraft are pushed back fully loaded, no sweat.
Guess it should be the same for a B1900.
Check with your brightest mechanic regarding any other situation.
Everyday aircraft are pushed back fully loaded, no sweat.
Guess it should be the same for a B1900.
Check with your brightest mechanic regarding any other situation.
Hello Dog:
I don't know anything about a B-1900, but everything I have learned about aircraft certification tells me that if you can't tow (or push) a fully loaded aircraft using the connection that the manufacturer has provided, then the manufacturer has made a very serious mistake putting that connection there.
I kind of doubt that Beech would have made that kind of mistake.
As for industry standards - think about what happens with really big, heavy aircraft such as Boeing and Airbus products - they get pushed back every flight, and recently, many of them are getting pushed back and then towed out of the terminal area, to start up somewhere closer to the runway.
Michael
I don't know anything about a B-1900, but everything I have learned about aircraft certification tells me that if you can't tow (or push) a fully loaded aircraft using the connection that the manufacturer has provided, then the manufacturer has made a very serious mistake putting that connection there.
I kind of doubt that Beech would have made that kind of mistake.
As for industry standards - think about what happens with really big, heavy aircraft such as Boeing and Airbus products - they get pushed back every flight, and recently, many of them are getting pushed back and then towed out of the terminal area, to start up somewhere closer to the runway.
Michael
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen too many B747s full to the gunwales being towed out from parking bays to holding points though.
Reading between the lines,I interpret that this is the direction of the question.
A smooth push back is one thing and so would be a tow using a integrated motorized tow which had a nosewheel surround fit and was within the weight limit of the aircraft.
I would also hazard the guess that any limits that applied might be different between towing and push back and that such could even depend upon the retraction or extension direction of the nosewheel and the structure itself of the nose cone.
Also of course there is always the nosewheel max angle of deflection to consider.
If you are describing with a situation where on some desert field the aircraft is being loaded up to Max and then hitched to a tractor to be trundled out to the hold prior to start, in order to save fuel perchance? This does not sound right and in my limited experience, if it does not sound right, with aircraft, it often is excruciatingly wrong.
What I would consider would be to write to Raytheon technical, probably anonymous by e mail and describe exactly what is being done and ask them for their own limitations on the procedures. This will at the least get them thinking. It will be the same as Airlink when their technical department absolutely prohibited the pouring of water on to hot brakes as a means of cooling overheated ones. No names and no packs but useful information with which to go on a crusade.
Hope those tangled thoughts help bash someone over the head as appropiate.
Reading between the lines,I interpret that this is the direction of the question.
A smooth push back is one thing and so would be a tow using a integrated motorized tow which had a nosewheel surround fit and was within the weight limit of the aircraft.
I would also hazard the guess that any limits that applied might be different between towing and push back and that such could even depend upon the retraction or extension direction of the nosewheel and the structure itself of the nose cone.
Also of course there is always the nosewheel max angle of deflection to consider.
If you are describing with a situation where on some desert field the aircraft is being loaded up to Max and then hitched to a tractor to be trundled out to the hold prior to start, in order to save fuel perchance? This does not sound right and in my limited experience, if it does not sound right, with aircraft, it often is excruciatingly wrong.
What I would consider would be to write to Raytheon technical, probably anonymous by e mail and describe exactly what is being done and ask them for their own limitations on the procedures. This will at the least get them thinking. It will be the same as Airlink when their technical department absolutely prohibited the pouring of water on to hot brakes as a means of cooling overheated ones. No names and no packs but useful information with which to go on a crusade.
Hope those tangled thoughts help bash someone over the head as appropiate.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/african-aviati...Airlink+brakes
Quite a little about it all here....above.
I make a direct quote here.....below
The training manual are not allowed to be used for Maintenance and Operation procedures.
The BRAKE TEMPERATURE is indicated in the MFD and the Operation Manuals provide the procedures for Brake temperature monitoring by the crew.
The wheel and brake system are composed by different type of material (metals and carbon ) with different thermodynamic behavior, therefore IN NOT RECOMMENDED and APPROVED any
procedure to force the brake temperature to cool down. As it can deform and change the mechanic proprieties.
The only recommended procedure is to release the parking brake (a/c on the chocks) until the brakes cool down as appropriate.
In order to indicate to you the appropriate channel for technical and operational queries at Embraer Customer Support organization. (Executive jets or Commercial Aviation), please inform the a/c SN and
operator / owner of the a/c ?
This was a reply from Embraer to an inquiry about the brake/water scene. You will see that Embraer ask to be informed the name of the airline doing this.
Edit: I know that this is thread drift but you will see that letters to manufactureres can provide guidance and also kick ass ammunition.
Quite a little about it all here....above.
I make a direct quote here.....below
The training manual are not allowed to be used for Maintenance and Operation procedures.
The BRAKE TEMPERATURE is indicated in the MFD and the Operation Manuals provide the procedures for Brake temperature monitoring by the crew.
The wheel and brake system are composed by different type of material (metals and carbon ) with different thermodynamic behavior, therefore IN NOT RECOMMENDED and APPROVED any
procedure to force the brake temperature to cool down. As it can deform and change the mechanic proprieties.
The only recommended procedure is to release the parking brake (a/c on the chocks) until the brakes cool down as appropriate.
In order to indicate to you the appropriate channel for technical and operational queries at Embraer Customer Support organization. (Executive jets or Commercial Aviation), please inform the a/c SN and
operator / owner of the a/c ?
This was a reply from Embraer to an inquiry about the brake/water scene. You will see that Embraer ask to be informed the name of the airline doing this.
Edit: I know that this is thread drift but you will see that letters to manufactureres can provide guidance and also kick ass ammunition.
Last edited by Der absolute Hammer; 9th May 2010 at 05:58.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cradle of Mankind
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Granted the manufactures may not approve of the practice, but really is it so bad to do this. I realise walking up to a hot brake and pouring a bucket of water over it may be less than intelligent but surely a light spray would do no harm. We all have flown and landed in very wet conditions ending up with hot brakes. You cannot tell me running water on a taxi way or runway does not end up on the brakes. That must effect the cooling process in a very similar way that a light spray may do.
ct
ct
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a consideration as to how an insurance company would react if there was a runway overrun that could be proved to be from deformed parts that even remotely could have been caused by such a practice which was known to have taken place as standard ops contrary to manufactureres requirements and recommendations.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not slagging off any airline. It is not intended to be insulting. But it is possibly bona fide comment, backed up by a letter from the manufacturer as to correct airworthy related perhaps procedures regarding the treatment of brakes.
The relevance to B1900 lies in the original post and was along the lines of where one could go to find out certain information which the poster maybe finds useful.
No intention of going technical on the Emb which I admit I do not know- but I suspect that the brake temperatures when overheated-or whatever nicety word one wants to use, prohibit taxi, let alone taxi, take off and rejected take off.
The thing about the landing on wet runways is possibly irrelevant. I think we could just be talking instead about shock cooling. Anyway-Embraer says don't do it-so don't!
The relevance to B1900 lies in the original post and was along the lines of where one could go to find out certain information which the poster maybe finds useful.
No intention of going technical on the Emb which I admit I do not know- but I suspect that the brake temperatures when overheated-or whatever nicety word one wants to use, prohibit taxi, let alone taxi, take off and rejected take off.
The thing about the landing on wet runways is possibly irrelevant. I think we could just be talking instead about shock cooling. Anyway-Embraer says don't do it-so don't!
Last edited by Der absolute Hammer; 9th May 2010 at 09:29.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect though, that has nothing to do with some or other airline pratice of cooling brakes with water contrary to manufacturer.
Understand the standard Emb practice, air cooled on taxi - or combination water and air cooled if atmospherics wet, quite normal.
Anyway, you want to find out if whacking around a 1900 with a towbar or tractor is a problem, respectfully suggest you drop an e mail to Raytheon. Probably guarentee further argument sno matter what they say?
Understand the standard Emb practice, air cooled on taxi - or combination water and air cooled if atmospherics wet, quite normal.
Anyway, you want to find out if whacking around a 1900 with a towbar or tractor is a problem, respectfully suggest you drop an e mail to Raytheon. Probably guarentee further argument sno matter what they say?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cradle of Mankind
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grizzly take a pill. I never said I ignored the manufactures or the regulators recommendations. It was just a question you chop. I have never seen it done and none of the companies I have worked for have ever done it legally or otherwise. So get off your tomato box and get back on the subject at hand i.e. towing a King Air.
ct
ct
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Africa
Age: 44
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the question, does anyone have anything in writing saying you CANT tow a fully loaded 1900 every day?
The simple reason I ask is that it is happening daily to not only me, but ALL 1900's operating for a particular client who INSISTS on it with NO valid reason being given (though I belive it makes the bosses windows shake if I start up close to his office????)
The 1900 was designed to be a self contained unit needing NO ground support, it is NOT a CRJ or 737 or allike that had daily handeling requirements incorperated into the design, it is meant to be operated without pushback and tug in before and after every flight. Thats the way it was intended to be operated. One only has to look at its pissy little nose wheel to see that it was not ment to be dragged arround at max all up constantly. The problem is, there is NOTHING I can find to support my discomfort with the "possible" long term damage and metal fatige that this "may" cause and thus have to continue with the clients wishes.
Any ideas???
Dog
The simple reason I ask is that it is happening daily to not only me, but ALL 1900's operating for a particular client who INSISTS on it with NO valid reason being given (though I belive it makes the bosses windows shake if I start up close to his office????)
The 1900 was designed to be a self contained unit needing NO ground support, it is NOT a CRJ or 737 or allike that had daily handeling requirements incorperated into the design, it is meant to be operated without pushback and tug in before and after every flight. Thats the way it was intended to be operated. One only has to look at its pissy little nose wheel to see that it was not ment to be dragged arround at max all up constantly. The problem is, there is NOTHING I can find to support my discomfort with the "possible" long term damage and metal fatige that this "may" cause and thus have to continue with the clients wishes.
Any ideas???
Dog
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: pretoria
Age: 47
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W.T.F.?
Can you or can you not tug / push a fully loaded 1900?
Dog I see nothing in the book, good practice dictate you do not let the bogey insige of the turn stand still, this is close but not quite oversteer, as this puts a lot of stain on the torque link, and munches tires, but you need a torque link to keep the strut in the gear, and hold it straight....
Does the towbar have a shockstrut to dissapate some energy during pull away and braking?
Dog I see nothing in the book, good practice dictate you do not let the bogey insige of the turn stand still, this is close but not quite oversteer, as this puts a lot of stain on the torque link, and munches tires, but you need a torque link to keep the strut in the gear, and hold it straight....
Does the towbar have a shockstrut to dissapate some energy during pull away and braking?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Africa
Age: 44
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grootbeen, not following you? you talking about the trq link on the mains or the nose? The question refers to the nose wheel getting hammered daily (surprisingly, worse than the abuse from my landings!!)
Yes, it has a shock absorber on the tow bar. Not the point, it was never ment for pushbacks, that towbar is to drag the old girl into the hangar for MX chacks and move her in tight spots if need be. I just cant prove it.
Dog
Yes, it has a shock absorber on the tow bar. Not the point, it was never ment for pushbacks, that towbar is to drag the old girl into the hangar for MX chacks and move her in tight spots if need be. I just cant prove it.
Dog
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, my first post on the forum - Hello All, I come in peace!
I’ve had +/- 15 yrs maintenance experience with the 1900D and have not heard of any issues with the nose wheel due to towing whilst fully loaded. Nor do I recall seeing anything in the MM or AFM wrt to towing and weight limits.
Have seen and heard of a few occasions where the tyre has deflated due to the wheel being turned to sharp whilst taxing, allowing the tyre to roll of the rim and the air to escape…
Note: the 1900 tow bar does not attach to the wheel (Axle) but rather to the Nose Brace just above the upper torque link.
It is possibly to damage the Brace, shimmy dampener and possibly other steering / rudder mechanisms if the turn / tow limits are exceeded (placarded on the front of the strut in view of the tug driver).
Another issue especially when the 1900D is loaded full or as sometimes happens a bit more than full… is the ease at which it will tip onto its tail, however I have not heard of this happening with a tug attached to front, but have seen it happen when a hand type tow bar is used to push the aircraft backwards.
I’ve had +/- 15 yrs maintenance experience with the 1900D and have not heard of any issues with the nose wheel due to towing whilst fully loaded. Nor do I recall seeing anything in the MM or AFM wrt to towing and weight limits.
Have seen and heard of a few occasions where the tyre has deflated due to the wheel being turned to sharp whilst taxing, allowing the tyre to roll of the rim and the air to escape…
Note: the 1900 tow bar does not attach to the wheel (Axle) but rather to the Nose Brace just above the upper torque link.
It is possibly to damage the Brace, shimmy dampener and possibly other steering / rudder mechanisms if the turn / tow limits are exceeded (placarded on the front of the strut in view of the tug driver).
Another issue especially when the 1900D is loaded full or as sometimes happens a bit more than full… is the ease at which it will tip onto its tail, however I have not heard of this happening with a tug attached to front, but have seen it happen when a hand type tow bar is used to push the aircraft backwards.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is not to yerk and keep the towing smooth! Ask the AMS blokes from Durban re this, apparently they broke a PC12 nose wheel by doing just that over a period of time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Africa
Age: 44
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Airplay, thats the kind of info I mean, but not just rumour, was it in fact the back and forth of the tug on a nose wheel never designed for that abuse that caused it to fail? and has that ever happened to a 1900 (that anyone here knows of) The day to day does not bother me, but in 5 years from now, the next muppet that flys the old girl will land and it will drop off then. I dont want that to happen if I can avoid it today?
Dog
Dog
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Lopez
P.O. Box 85
Wichita, KS 67201-0085 +1.316.676.6233
+1.316.676.8027 Fax
[email protected]
This guy can probably point you in a definite direction. You must either want to reassure yourself or to face the company with proof. Seems to me that the only way to achieve either is to go to the oracle and ask?
P.O. Box 85
Wichita, KS 67201-0085 +1.316.676.6233
+1.316.676.8027 Fax
[email protected]
This guy can probably point you in a definite direction. You must either want to reassure yourself or to face the company with proof. Seems to me that the only way to achieve either is to go to the oracle and ask?