737 Landing With Blown Tire

[rickshaw1]

MSNBC states an AA 737 blew one main tire on takeoff from LAX. Now burning off fuel and will land when weight down to acceptable level.
News folks are speculating endlessly.
Good luck guys!

[alph2z]

LAX AA emergency landing planned. Burning off fuel. Blew Tire. LAX to Toronto flight . Continuing..... CNN
.

[Carnage Matey!]

How very unexciting.

[alph2z]

Then don't reply.

Left inboard tire blew. TO 3 hrs ago !?
.

[alph2z]

AA1586 04900 ft 256 kts B738 135 people on board, over catalina circling left turns :}

CNN Flight tracker.

[andrewwordsworth]

They keep on saying it is dumping fuel.

However pilots is it difficult to land with one burst tyre?

[brian.crissie]

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9854/klaxhf6.png

[MichaelCPH]

Just land......
:rolleyes:

[alph2z]

Looks like it's heading inbound to LAX.
.

[alph2z]

Landed. A bit of smoke near left inboard tire during roll-out.

Fire trucks

Good landing. Runway closed.

Media no longer interested :}
.

[Airbubba]

A link to the ground track posted above:

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > American Airlines Inc. #1586 > 02-Sep-2008 > KLAX-KLAX (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL1586/history/20080902/1709Z/KLAX/KLAX)

They keep on saying it is dumping fuel.

Yeah, I'm sure it is. Also the tire was the main gear inboard on the nose gear.:)

[Habster]

watching on a webcam at LAX and aircraft came to a stop for a few minutes. It has now moved off screen under own steam followed by a couple of fire trucks.

[sevenstrokeroll]

for the record, cnn made it clear the plane was burning off fuel and NOT DUMPING fuel...

also, planes don't move under their own steam...;-)

[411A]

Case closed, it seems.

Now, back to normal (sometimes uninformed) programming.:}

Ho hum...:rolleyes:

[Roadtrip]

Almost everything they reported by the FOX news bimbo during that long special broadcast was flat wrong or incorrect. While saying that they didn't want to sensationalize the thing, that's precisely what their intent was and what, in fact, they did.

They said the captain was dumping fuel. It wasn't. It was burning off fuel.

They talked about how dangerous a landing it would be. It isn't. Boeing builds their aircraft to land safely on the remaining tire.

Their "pilot" consultant on the air was an idiot didn't seem to know a 737 from a baked potato.

The pilot consultant said that the pilots' train in the simulator routinely for blown tire scenarios. Wrong. I've NEVER trained for a blown tire in the simulator in almost 30 years of flying. There were always much more serious things to train for.

They zoomed in on a 757 on final approach and identified it as the 737 in question.

Just another pathetic display of incompetence and fear-mongering on the news medias part.

BTW, the airplane landed safely and after a quick inspection by the AARF, taxied into the gate to discharge pax, inspect the landing gear in detail, and change the tires on the left main.

[VAFFPAX]

It's Fox News, what else did you expect? Sky News is owned by the same genius... and has the same shoddy quality of news reporting.

S.

[sevenstrokeroll]

so, why didn't you want to watch CNN?

cnn reported the plane was burning off fuel and made it clear this type didn't have "dump'' capability.

that the plane should be able to land safely on the remaining tire.

it quickly clarified that the 757 was NOT the plane in question, noticing the landing gear had too many tires.

[llondel]

OK, operational question - if it was safe to fly in circles near LAX for a bit, wouldn't it be just as easy to fly in a straight line towards the destination given the number of suitable landing sites en route? Or is the main concern that there might be fire or damage associated with the burst tyre so they want to be in a position where they could just land in a few minutes regardless of weight if they had to?

[Jofm5]

OK, operational question - if it was safe to fly in circles near LAX for a bit, wouldn't it be just as easy to fly in a straight line towards the destination given the number of suitable landing sites en route? Or is the main concern that there might be fire or damage associated with the burst tyre so they want to be in a position where they could just land in a few minutes regardless of weight if they had to?


From an uneducated point of view (talking of myself) I agree with you, but I think back to the concorde accident in paris and unless you know the damage done to the plane I would think the best thing is to stay close to the tarmac, burn of fuel whilst all looks okay and stay within range should the situation suddenly change and require a sudden change of plan.

Tho, I will confess I am not an aviator and my comments should therefore be treated accordingly :}

[sevenstrokeroll]

llondel

sorry, good pilots just don't think that way.

so, what if you retract the gear and head on to the destination, knowing you will have to make an emergency landing there?

and what if, halfway there, someone on board has a baby, or you have an engine faliure unrelated to the tire problem and you have to land

and that airport, nearest to the engine failure, or passenger problem has a runway that is only 8000' long instead of LAX's 11000feet?

so now you have an engine failure and one blown tire

its called: WHAT IF?


there are dozens of scenarios that could be played out if you leave a sure thing, like LAX in sight with great weather.

if our leaders in washington would only think like pilots! (hey, maybe bush wasn't a good pilot!)

[YRP]

also, planes don't move under their own steam...;-)

Sure they do!

Burn a hydrocarbon and you get carbon mono/dioxide plus water vapour... hot water vapour....

Hat, coat :).

[llondel]

sevenstrokeroll, thanks for the comments. I know there are all sorts of good reasons for staying put near a known good landing place, but I also remember the BA 747 on three engines that decided to head for the UK (twice!). I don't recollect any specific examples but I'm sure I've heard of cases where emergency services were called out at the destination airport for an aircraft landing with a tyre blown on take-off.

[BelArgUSA]

Well guys, many of you do not seem to realize how "it goes" with airlines.
xxx
Of course, the captain is in command, and decides the best course of action. It will be definitely HIS DECISION in case of an emergency. He will act immediately, perform the immediate actions, and make an assessment of the situation, and decide for emergency landing if so required.
xxx
But this was NO EMERGENCY... same would be an engine failure...
xxx
The captain decided the best action, here, which was "call the company" - in this case he called AA DFW OPS, and got THEM to decide the best course of action. No captain, again except a case requiring immediate action, will put HIS LICENSE in jeopardy... Leave that for the director of operation, or his representative.
xxx
Obviously he called "them" and was instructed to reduce to X weight, burn the fuel. He then instructed the cabin staff to prepare the cabin and brief the passengers (as per SOP to please the geeks and nerds of this new generation of pilots). By doing this, if there had been some further damage during landing, he would have easy to say, to his manager or director of operations that "he was instructed to do so, by so and so".
xxx
Our GOM is clear about this point. Call the company and advise, proceed as instructed.
xxx
:ok:
Happy contrails

P.S. When writing anything in Pprune, do not forget to mention SOP in each paragraph.
Same, mention CRM whenever you can... Sounds good and satifies the SOP/CRM police.

[tbavprof]

From the track I'd say he's hand-flying the hold.:}

[Airbubba]

P.S. When writing anything in Pprune, do not forget to mention SOP in each paragraph.
Same, mention CRM whenever you can... Sounds good and satifies the SOP/CRM police.

How true.:) Remember a couple of decades ago when Hart Langer cleaned up our SOP's and manuals? There, I mentioned it...

[White Knight]

BelArgUSA... Sorry pal, but if you take ops word as sacred you'll dig yourself a hole! If you've had a problem, then when and IF you have time a call to ops to advise them of the options is fine, but don't let them decide your options FOR YOU. Indeed, it's YOUR licence on the line, so YOU make the decisions:ugh:
It may not be the decision that the company would like, but that's tough titties. Nor tell me it's standard SOP (satisfied the CRM nutters) in all airlines to let ops decide what you should do with an abnormal 'cos it aint....

[BelArgUSA]

White Knight -
xxx
Each country and airline has its own culture... We all inform each other what is our lot.
I happened to know the AA culture and environment in this incident.
At your age, I knew half of what I know now. Include your part of the world.
And I learned a lot from the "old farts" I worked with...
In 75 days, I hang my coat and my hat, and leave it to you.
My airline career - 1969-2008 - R.I.P.
Remember the last lines of "Gone with the Wind" -
- "Frankly Dear, I don't give a damn" -
xxx
Enjoy Ramadan - Eid mubarak, sadiq... Masalama
:)
Happy contrails

[JEM60]

Best wishes, and, remembering the very last line of GWTW, 'tomorrow is another day':)

[nitro rig driver]

Airbubba

"Yeah, I'm sure it is. Also the tire was the main gear inboard on the nose gear.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif "


Is that somewhere near the outboard #4 apu next to the tow hitch.:hmm:

[White Knight]

BelArg - I stand very much by what I say. If you let ops make your decision for you then you WILL get flamed one day!
Yes, you may be old and wise but I'm no greenhorn thankyou very much... My career? 1988-who the hell knows!! The only 'old farts' I work with are the permanent F/O's who failed to make command even with all they knew:\
Good luck in your retirement.....

PS - can't stand ramadan, I'm not a beardie;)

[BOAC]

Our GOM is clear about this point. Call the company and advise, proceed as instructed- could we just clarify whether GOM is yourspeak for SOP(:ok:) and whether you are actually suggesting we should all follow the 'GOM' (= SOP - there, that's twice) or is that a sort of 'European' thing that is really stupid and Captains should make their own decisions because they are american and ingelligent? Now I am confused.

[Beanbag]

Originally Posted by BelArgUSA
Our GOM is clear about this point. Call the company and advise, proceed as instructed

- could we just clarify whether GOM is yourspeak for SOP()

I think you might find it's Good ol' manual :ok:

[sevenstrokeroll]

I'll bet that the crew of the alaska md80 with trim problems wished they had just landed at the first airport instead of talking with mx and trying to "troubleshoot".

remember, YOU are the captain, not some guy in a concrete building who can walk to his car.

[JW411]

Losing a tyre on take-off is no big deal but it is probably not a good idea to retract the gear. The remaining tyre (or tyres) on the affected gear leg are quite likely now to be overheated.

I can remember just such a case of a DC-10 having a mainwheel tyre blow on take-off from Bombay (Mumbai). One of the remaining mainwheel tyres blew up in the gear well after retraction and caused more than just a little bit of damage and left the crew with a pretty interesting hydraulic problem.

Don't ever worry about having to land with a burst tyre. I once lost all 16 mainwheel tyres on landing (due to a very bizarre hydraulic problem) and it was no big deal - a bit like severe nosewheel shimmy.

Since then, I never worried too much about landing with burst tyres.

Mind you, I don't think I ever did burst another single one. Perhaps 16 at one time was my ration for a long and happy career!

[Airbubba]

The pilot consultant said that the pilots' train in the simulator routinely for blown tire scenarios. Wrong. I've NEVER trained for a blown tire in the simulator in almost 30 years of flying. There were always much more serious things to train for.


I've certainly trained for tire bursts in the sim, usually, but not always, on takeoff. Perhaps it's a U.S. thing.

I can remember just such a case of a DC-10 having a mainwheel tyre blow on take-off from Bombay (Mumbai). One of the remaining mainwheel tyres blew up in the gear well after retraction and caused more than just a little bit of damage and left the crew with a pretty interesting hydraulic problem.

Was this Northwest out of BOM around Y2K?

I'll bet that the crew of the alaska md80 with trim problems wished they had just landed at the first airport instead of talking with mx and trying to "troubleshoot".

I'm sure this accident was on the minds of the pilots of Obama's plane when they made a quick divert for pitch control difficulties:

Obama's unexpected St. Louis landing: The Swamp (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obamas_unexpected_st_louis_lan.html)

[JW411]

Airbubba:

No; it wasn't NW but BG in 1984/85. The inbound crew had landed long and had hammered the brakes.

The outbound captain was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier and went, either without realising that the brake temps were rather high or else thought it would be OK on the day.

I cannot remember every detail but I think they ended up with slats/no flaps which is pretty uncomfortable in a DC-10.

I left the DC-10 not long afterwards but I heard that Mr Douglas had thoughts about installing a chainlink barrier in the gear bay to prevent a recurrence.

[sevenstrokeroll]

RE OBAMA

airbubba, I'll bet you are right.

as far as tire (let's spell it right shall we...bombs away) bursts, landing is quite conventional so every normal landing is a practice for a tire burst landing.

keep control

keep on centerline (or as an option, you can bias to the good side)

be ready for another tire burst.

be ready to use assymetric reverse or braking

but most likely, just get light and land.

[L-38]

OK, operational question - if it was safe to fly in circles near LAX for a bit, wouldn't it be just as easy to fly in a straight line towards the destination given the number of suitable landing sites en route?

Continuing on to destination would initially seem very logical . . . . However, if you have sensed a blown tire (loud pop and possible ground roll vibration) during the take off roll, you would then be reluctant to retract the gear as you do not want to chance more damage (should the mangled tire catch on something in it's wheel well during retraction / extension . . . lot's of plumbing in those wheel wells).
Of course, you would then have insufficient fuel for your destination when / with the wheels down.

Boeing built these airplanes without a dump system, because these aircraft are generally too small to suffer much from a heavy weight landing. . . Perhaps they should include a fuel dump system anyway, to be used for pax convenience while with a cautious pilot and / or company dispatcher.

[Rick777]

Unfortunately in this day and age the biggest worry I ever had during a emergency was answering to the powers that be whether it was Air Force superiors or the FAA. I was so well trained that it was rather easy to handle the emergency. It was second guessing the Monday morning quarterbacks that was hard. I have had dispatch try to lead me down the garden path before too, but you still have to ask their opinion-sometimes they have info you don't. With current data-link capabilities they often much better tech info than you do. the smart thing to do is get all the relevant info you can and then make your own decision. As far as the guy with the blown tire pressing on across the country, that would have been just stupid because retracting the gear would have been a bad idea for the afore mentioned reasons, and he didn't have enough fuel to make it with the gear down. Going on to LAS or DEN or wherever he could have stopped for gas would have been stupid for a lot of reasons such as inconveneincing the passengers when the plane was grounded for various break and wheel replacements.

[Roadtrip]

I think BelArgUSA is WAY-OFF in his assessment of how the incident was handled company SOP wise. He may claim to know AA ops culture, but it's obvious he doesn't. AA captains have command authority of the aircraft and may consult with experts on the ground in the case of unusual or complicated emergencies, but the certainly do not take "orders" from guys at HQ on how to fly and recover his aircraft.

It's ludicous to think that the Captain called DFW Ops to receive orders on how fly his airplane during the incident. Since there was some time, he might have consulted briefly with maintenance tech in Tulsa on the best course of action given the specific circumstances. If that did happen, it most likely went down something like . . . . "Tulsa, this is what I have . . . this is what we've done . . . and these are my intentions. Do you have any further suggestions? Ans: No, Captain, that sounds good. Mx will meet you on the ground." Personnel on the ground are SUPPORT personnel, not command personnel. They are there to support the pilot-in-command, not command the pilot-in-command.

In the three US airlines I've worked for, none had "call the company" for instructions of what to do as procedure for handling an abnormal condition or emergency. Situation dependent, the Captain might consult with specific company experts for technical advice or further information (as good CRM would expect), but in no way would he acquiese any command authority whatsoever.

Getting "orders" on how to fly your airplane from some airspeed-zero guy at HQ does not relieve the pilot in command of responsibility in the eyes of federal authorities.

As far as specific actions, you follow the QRH unless you have damn good reason not to. Blown tires are pretty generic Boeing-wise and in this case probably says something like do not retract the gear and land at the nearest suitable airport.

And despite what BelArgUSA says, it's no doubt that the Captain declared an emergency, as I would have done also. If he declared an emergency, then it WAS an "emergency." Better to have the ARFF there and not need them, than the chance of vise-versa. The runway was going to have to be swept and inspected anyway, plus the aircraft inspected for ability to taxi off.

Oh, and BTW, Boeing designs their aircraft so that the remaining tire can take the load of a landing with the adjacent one flat. It does overload the remaining good tire, however, and does require that tire be condemned and changed as well regardless of it's appearance. The problem with a flat tire landing comes in damage from fast flying rubber debries, or the possibility of the remaining tire failing. I've blown tires on landing in the past and had to be told by the tower that the tire had blown. I didn't even feel it until at lower speed.

[L-38]

The television media had reported (and shown) a long line of responding fire / rescue trucks that was waiting for the aircraft's arrival. The line of trucks were actually over 1/2 of a mile long! . . Wasn't this "overkill' for an incident as simple as a single blown tire?

(My personal experience has proven that casualties from such incidents, have more to do with induced heart attack's occurring to individual pax's prone to excitement from all of the fuss.)

[Luke_08]

aaaaah lets all run and hide under the table:=:=:sad:

[Roadtrip]

It's the ARRF commander's decision on what he calls out for the emergency. My guess is that he expected a normal landing, but was prepared for the worst. Not too much cost to roll the extra manpower. They probably appreciated the chance to exercise the equipment and get out of the ready room for a while as well.

Besides the same Monday-morning quarterbacks (like dimwit blondes on the network morning shows) that would criticize him for bringing the majority of the brigade to the fight would also crucify him if something bad happened and all the equipment wasn't there.

[westhawk]

Thank you Roadtrip for a couple of entirely sensible posts.:ok:

Westhawk

[Centaurus]

I've NEVER trained for a blown tire in the simulator in almost 30 years of flying. There were always much more serious things to train for.

My company trains for blown tyre both on take off and landing run. The real concern is that crews will abort the take off right up to V1 if the blow-out occurs. The teaching is that after 20 knots below V1 it is safer to continue the take off due loss of braking efficiency. Blown tyres late in the take off run are more common that engine failures and the danger is in the abort as mentioned. To say there are always much more serious things to train for is rather a foolish statement. We train in the simulator for serious non-normals and blown tyres on take off is potentially extremely serious and thus competence at handling this situation has to be certified on the pilots records.

[Roadtrip]

It is not a "foolish" statement. A blown tire (assuming that you can even correctly assess that you have one during the takeoff run), comes under the heading of something you should not ordinarily high speed abort for, for the reasons you have outlined. That (and many other malfuctions) comes under rejected takeoff decision training, which does receive much emphasis in the sim. The second part of that is if you low speed abort, what are you going to do differently and if you continue the takeoff what are you going to do differently while on the runway? Again, assuming you even know you have a failed tire (of course different aircraft may have different physical cues of tire failure). If you assess the problem in time, not raising the gear to prevent further damage is likely what the QRH specifies.

Now, you're company may make tire failures a sim training item, and more power to you if they have the sim time, but I'm saying that on my personal part, I cannot remember ever being given that scenario in an emergency procedures sim and I'm type rated in four Boeing 7-series airplanes from the 707 to the 747, plus experience in 4 engine military aircraft where sim time was much more available. I got my blown tire training on-the-job, and the failure modes I had never caused any serious concern. As is often the case, specific training and emphasis items will vary by company and indeed by national aviation authority.

[jamie230985]

The reason the A/C stayed close to LAX was due to the AA standard operating procedures, your right in referring to the terrible Concorde incident, that was one of the worst accidents resulting from this exact situation.

Ultimately if the plane stayed where it did, it could limp back to the airport should it need to and LAX ATC could arrange for the correct services to be in place for landing.

It may also be due to the fact that AA has a maintenance base at LAX, we'll never know!!

[bubbers44]

Blowing a tire on takeoff with no FOD damage to engines sop is to leave the gear down and return for landing after evaluating landing weight. The only time I ever continued a flight after being unable to retract the gear was a LAS to LAX flight scheduled for 45 minutes because leaving the gear down just restricted my airspeed and altitude causing a 20 minute delay in landing rather than returning and causing many hours of delay. They did everything right in my opinion. We always get all the input we can but pilots make the final decision on what to do. Sometimes when you are talking to maintenance you need to realise what they are telling you might be mechanically correct but not an authorized procedure for a pilot using his check lists. Remember Alaska Airlines MD80 stab trim problem near Santa Barbara, Ca?

[DC-ATE]

Before transitioning to the DC-8, I was both Co-Pilot and Captain on the 737-200 and -300. While Co-Pilot (they call 'em First Officers now), we called for "the equipment" on three different occasions; all precautionary. One for a bird strike; engine showed vibration and we reduced power (didn't shut it down): one for a faulty gear indication: and one for a blown tire.

The blown tire (one of the Mains - don't remember which) happened on take-off out of O'Hare for Detroit just past V1/R (about the same number on the -200). It was my leg. I tried to give it back to the Captain, but he said it was my leg and to "take care of it!" [We knew each other very well] There was some slight shaking of the aircraft, but no big deal. We continued the take-off (left the gear out), notified the Tower, and after "consulting with the Company", continued on to DTW where a normal landing was made.

No big deal really with ONE blown tire. That's why there's two or more.