Virgin Blue Emergency Landing

[Ultergra]

Quote: Yahoo7.com.au
A Virgin Blue flight has made an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport after one of its tyres burst.

Flight DJ523 from Sydney to Coolangatta made an unscheduled precautionary landing at Brisbane about 2.30pm (AEST), a Virgin Blue spokeswoman said.

It's been reported a nose-tyre on the plane burst on take-off in Sydney.

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman has been quoted as saying staff spotted tyre rubber on the runway after the plane departed for Coolangatta.

After landing without incident, crews found one of the tyres on the main landing gear had burst, and replaced the tyre.

The plane then taxied to the bay, where 109 passengers on board disembarked and were put on buses to the Gold Coast.

.........

[Bo777]

hmmm ... no mention of this on the 6 o'clock news.

[Dog One]

On ABC radio news at 6pm, passenger claiming tyre blew before take off, and crew still took off and endangered the passenger's lives!

[Joker 10]

A blown tyre on a dual axle, big deal.

[Back Seat Driver]

Unlike duplicated redundancy systems, tyres are not certified to carry the load of 2 tyres on 1 tyre only. One could easily argue that if the tyre let go around V1 speed, then the prudent course is to continue take-off and gather as much info as possible. Diverting to BNE reduces the fuel load, by 2 tonnes or so, and can only be better than most/all other alternatives. Seems to me that the Virgin crew performed optimally, (not knowing all the circumstances, of course).
Well done the crew.

[Goat Whisperer]

of course one tyre can support the weight of the aircraft.

And Syd-Bne in a 737 burns 3 ton, more if you know you're landing on a blown tyre.

[coaldemon]

Crew handled the incident very well and the tyre went on the takeoff roll not on the taxi to the runway.

[Back Seat Driver]

Apologies Goat, I only sourced my info from the manufacturer.
http://ap.bridgestone.co.jp/pdf/Care_and_Maintenance.pdf
More than 2 decades since I flew 737's between SYD & BNE, but it used to be about 2.2 tonnes burn then. That's progress.
Sorry 'bout that ol' chap, I'll try to do better next time.

[ROH111]

An incident occured, as some have said, on the takeoff run... V1 is at times too late to reject a take off for anything other than a serious incident... Post 80 or 100 knots, pilot's should be go minded... If this happened early in the take off run, I am sure the pilot's would have rejected the take off.... I therefore assume it occured post 100kt's or 80kts or whatever Virgin decide to use...

BUT to then fly all the way to another destination once an incident has occured to me does not constitute "that the Virgin crew performed optimally" nor that the, "Crew handled the incident very well..."

They left a suitable aerodrome to proceed to another airport of greater duration other than one that was directly below them.. how is that not a breach of safety? By FAR I am not saying that this replicates the Concorde accident, but struth, what sort of other damage MAY have occured... I know that by holding or diverting to another aerodrome would have incurred the same time airbone to burn fuel off, but being closer to Sydney would SURELY be safer than flying all up the East Coast away from the departure aerodrome potentially jepodising passenger safety!!

Oh, but this isn't Qantas, so let's praise the pilots, if this was QF my goodness, the roof would have caved in with abuse!!!!!

[Back Seat Driver]

Landing with unknown tyre/wheel/flap etc. damage, at an aerodrome with a substantial portion of both runways surrounded by water, is your preferred option, well OK then, when you're the captain that will be your decision.

[HotDog]

A blown tyre is no big deal and wouldn't be noticed on the flight deck of a 737. Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire? More than likely closer to destination then the origin of the flight. Decision to divert to BNE probably due to advice from maintenance control due to maintenace facilities and spares. Certainly wouldn't call it an emergency landing.

[Dehavillanddriver]

ROH111, I didnt realise you work for a daily newspaper.

Endangering passenger safety - really??

I wasnt there, but I am pretty sure that if the crew had thought that the aircraft was in any compromised they would have returned to Sydney.

I cannot see how they endangered anything or anyone

[ROH111]

I guess you meant Sydney when you said "runways surrounded by water..." Yeah I guess landing on a runway you calculated as too short is as unproffesional as you can get.. If you run off the end and end up in the drink, is about as dangerous as running off the end of the runway into the dirt catching on fire, I don't see your point BSD.

HotDog: "Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire?"

Well I hardly think that ATC would allow aircraft to depart or arrive on a runway contaminated with blown bits of rubber all over it, so one would think that the crew knew about it very very soon after take off, point aside, I agree with you that engineering can advise the Pilot In Command on their OPINION on what action should be taken, but to leave a more than suitable (excuse the water surrounding the airport like a deserted island...... god I still don't get the point you were trying to make BSD) to fly far far away without any knowledge of what further damage could have been done to the aircraft... im not is saying crazy, I just thought the opinion of CASA and safety in general, is that you can't/shouldn't over fly a suitable aerdrome to proceed to another without a damn good reason...

Tell me if I have interpreted this "myth" incorrectly...

[Goat Whisperer]

At or after 80 knots Syd to Ool I would certainly continue in the event of (any) tyre failure.

Stopping performance is more likely to be diminished than go-performance and once airborne if the wheels all retract snugly then I would continue to my destination if it's a well equipped airport or if to a well equipped airport near my destination (ie if Maroochy or Coolie go to Brisbane).

If the tyre was shredded and uncontained it wouldn't retract, it would hit one of those little doohickeys on the fairing and the gear would fall back down presenting the crew with red gear lights... but that's a different story to today's.

Once I have accepted that I'm taking it into the air I may as well fly to my destination as there's no point landing at my origin (in this case Sydney) as I would be at a higher weight than I need to be and it would unnecessarily alarm the pax. VB learned from that mess with VBT that OOL is not a great place to fix aeroplanes beyond the simple changing of tyres and that a blown tyre can lead to maintenance issues beyond just the wheel change.

VB as an organisation does learn from experience, and having flown with both gentlemen on this flight I have no hesitation that they would have acted with the responsibility and good judgement expected of us all.

I am aware that in the event of a tyre failure its "axle mate" - as Bridgestone poetically put it - will need changing but believe it can be expected to hold up until then.

[Back Seat Driver]

Absolutely no guarantee that it's 'axle mate' can carry the load. (although experience shows that it probably can).
I'm sure you read on the link I provided that the 'axle mate' must be immediately removed and scrapped.
regards

[porch monkey]

BSD, If you want to claim you source your info from the manufacturer, at least get the right one. Try Goodyear. Or actually, since most of them are retreads, try whoever does that. In ML at least, that's still Goodyear.

The tyres "axle mate" is better off supporting it's blown mate when the a/c is 2.5 to 3 tonnes less in landing weight, and cold, rather that pretty much right after take off. (Heavier a/c and much hotter) As long as the gear retracts normally, and no other sytems are an issue, then going to Bn isn't an issue.

[Back Seat Driver]

Thankyou Porch, unfortunately the Goodyear manual does not seem to be available on the internet without paying $13.95USD for the manual. I'll show you the link if you're offering to pay, but I'm not that interested, besides Boeing mandate the procedure to follow, for tire maintenance, and if it is any different from Bridgestone I'll be a Porch Monkeys Uncle.
Are you sure DJ only use Goodyear 'cause my mob use 3 or maybe 4 different brands.
ps. Large aircraft tyre retreading in Australia ceased last year. (according to Goodyears web site)
regards

[porch monkey]

Then I guess we import them, because we still use them. (Retreads) Only ever seen Goodyears on our fleet. Of course, I don't get to do every walkaround either, usually only if it's pissing pain, or 35+ degrees in the shade..... And No, I'm not interested enough to pay for it, I continue to do what the good Boeing manuals say.

[Blip]

A blown tyre is no big deal and wouldn't be noticed on the flight deck of a 737. Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire?

HotDog. The flight deck is right above the nose wheel. Even taxiing over a taxi light at 15 knots makes a horrible noise and jolt through the nose suspension. Of course the pilots would know a blown tyre when it happens!

Stopping performance is more likely to be diminished than go-performance

Goat Whisperer why would that be since the nose wheel has no brakes?

If the tyre was shredded and uncontained it wouldn't retract, it would hit one of those little doohickeys on the fairing and the gear would fall back down presenting the crew with red gear lights... but that's a different story to today's.

I think you will find that that feature only applies to the main wheels.

We could probably work out what rpm the nose wheels would be doing at rotation. Diameter say 50 cm. Ground speed about 140 kt. Circumference = pi x 0.5 m = 1.57 m.
Speed = 70 m/sec
Rotation Speed = 44 revs per sec
Rotation Speed = 2675 rpm!

And the only thing to stop that rotation is the snubbers inside the nose wheel bay.

I can just imagine shreds of loose rubber thrashing about at 2000 rpm near hydraulic lines, nose wheel steering cables and whatever else is in there. There's probably a pressure bulkhead not far beyond those wheel bay panels too.

If I thought a nose wheel tyre or any tyre had blown, I'd be leaving the gear down (unless off course I was having engine trouble at the same time), and hanging around for the weight to reduce below the MLW. And if the weather was such that a return to the departure field was not a good option, I'd be waiting a few minutes before retracting the gear to give them time to spin down.

By the way I find it very hard to believe that any pilot would take off, knowing a tyre had blown beforehand.

[lame1]

Who did the wal around prior to flight?Was it a LAME or pilot or porter.

[lame1]

Who did the walk around prior to flight?Was it a LAME or pilot or porter.

[Back Seat Driver]

Blip, if you reread the 1st post you will see also that a main gear tyre was replaced after landing. I don't know that facts (nosewheel/mainwheel) for sure just what I'm reading here on prune. (BBC aren't reporting it, and I can't sleep) 1 sheep 2.......

[GE90115BL2]

I suggest you all go to YouTube and search for a Boeing training video on "rejected takeoffs"
It specifically talks about tyres.

[GE90115BL2]

sorry guys I've just searched for the video and can't seem to find it?
Basically Boeing said for a tyre failure don't reject above 80 kts as your ability to stop within the runway available is severly restricted. Plenty of RTO's for tyre failure at high speeds have caused over runs in the past.

[goddamit]

According to the facts so far, if the incident occurred above 80kts, a 'continue' is the correct option(depending on other circumstances of course), I would have done the same. Next if the crew were not aware of the tyre blow out until the tyre was found, then there's nothing wrong with continuing. The gear is already up, it is not a 'req'd to land at nearest suitable' problem. Continuing on the plan is the lowest workload option to assess the alternatives & it burns fuel for landing. ie lower touchdown speed abeit by just a few knots etc. Who knows they may have been above MLW.
Of course if they knew of the blow out when it occurred, then initially climbing out on the plan with the gear down to assess the problem may have worked better(less chance of internal damage). Once an eval was done the a return to SYD. I wasn't there, but the crew appeared to have done a great job. Many variables for this, & hindsight is a great advantage. Always good to discuss events like this though.

[silversaab]

I'd love to see the media (and Virgin) pursue that clown who insisted that the tyre blew while taxying to the runway, and that he was wild with anger because Virgin had put his life in danger. Obviously he is an aviation expert, because - lets face it - he was on the plane. I imagine being an expert he knew straight away what had happened. Must have been a handful for the cabin crew, what with him being wild with anger and all.

The media (ABC was the one I heard) chose to interview him and then air that interview Australia-wide with hardly a comment from themselves. I wonder how many others they interviewed who just shrugged their shoulders and said the flight was ok apart from a bit of inconvenience?

P.S. Funny how the vast number of aviation experts in the media seem to like their landings in just 3 categories - normal, emergency, and crash.

[Cypher]

Hmmm, what does BOEING say about this situation....

Boeing FCTM 8.22, (Flight Crew Training Manual) B737NG

[Abbreivated to avoid copyright infringements and save my fingers]
[My comments]

Tire Failure during or after Takeoff

If the crew suspects a tire failure during takeoff, the Air Traffic Services facility serving the departing airport should be advised for the potential for tire pieces remaining on the runway.

[Well the crew by the sounds of it didn't even know a tire had burst. And ATC probably didn't even know it was that particular flight that had had a burst tire]

The crew should consider continuing to the destination [my emphesis] unless there are indications that other damage has occurred. (non-normal engine indications, engine vibrations, hydraulic system failures, leaks, etc.)

[Consider the considerations considered in this case]

Continuing to the destination will allow the aircraft weight to be reduced normally and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low.

____________________

The manual then goes on to Landing with a Flat Tire and that Boeing airplanes are designed so that the landing gear and the remaining tire(s) have adequate strength to accommodate a flat nose gear or main tire.

Perfectly adequate and safe to continue on to destination, simple as that.

So ROH111, it wasn't just the PIC or engineerings opinion that they acted on, it was BOEING PROCEDURE and Boeing built the damn thing so you'd hope they damn well knew what they were talking about. They obviously had no indications of damage or else they would have landed back at Sydney as per BOEING PROCEDURE. The bloody flight deck lights up like a Christmas tree if there were any abnormals.

So in conclusion, no.. you haven't interpreted this myth correctly at all....

[Zoomy]

Yes ROH111, read cypers comments. Then try to refrain from posting utter crap. It is hard at times!:ok:

[lame1]

Could someone shed some light on who might have carried out the turn around check on this aircraft.Do lame's or pilots or porters do the walk around checks prior to each flight.

[Break Right]

Walk arounds are always done by one of the operating pilots for that flight, depending the port of departure an engineer may do a walk around as well. In this case at Sydney the engineers always do the receive and dispatch , so one would presume they do a walk around as well!!:ok:

With regard to porter or pit crew they can walk around the aircraft as much as they like, but are far from trained to find any faults with an aircraft! Fact! Having said that most if these guys/girls are around aircraft all day long and generally can pick up a very basic problem with an aircraft when they see one. They are not to be relied on for inspections, just like you would do at a normal turn around at a remote airport. :oh:

[Steve Sydney]

VOZ523 knew about the burst tyre at most within 2-3 minutes of becoming airborne (I believe they knew as soon as it happened) as they had a company 737 depart straight after them and advised the tower that there was rubber debris about half way down the runway. VOZ523 advised departures that they believed it was from their aircraft. A subsequent rumway inspection revealed what according to SACL safety officers was around half of one nose gear tyre. The runway was closed for almost 30 minutes whilst all of the debris was removed.

[HotDog]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m246/adamtakach/Tyreburst.jpg

One of many tyre burst incidents that I "survived" during my flying career.:ok:

[MajorLemond]

Something to think about in this situation is that V1 speeds are based on an ability to stop the a/c with wheel braking only. A burst / missing tyre would alter the braking performance of the jet hence possibly reducing the actual V1 speed below the calculated V1. So a reject at V1 may result in an overrun. Perhaps only a small chance of this but still a possibility? :)

Edit: already mentioned I didn`t read every post!

[ad-astra]

Well we shovel shi*t on the media for their famous "beatups" but having read two pages of absolute rubbish I am amazed that some of you so called "professional pilots" can stoop to the same level.

Bar the poster who included references of the Boeing FCTM not a single post made any sense nor did it add to anything other than to whip the mob into a frenzy of chest beating and "I'm right" and "your wrong" posts.

They did what they get paid to do .....and well!

That's it!

[fanning]

on a slight side note - anyone know why the DJ from Melbourne to Hobart this evening (Wednesday) turned back mid-flight? Understandably the captain was a bit vague in saying a "light had come on in the cockpit"

[framer]

I had tyre strength demonstrated to me in a controlled fashion about ten years ago. A wheel unit with tyre on it was inflated to 1900PSI (inside a cage) ....blow me down it didn't let go. I was pretty impressed. It was not a 737 tyre but i imagine they are also strong.

[Casper]

I'd love to see the media (and Virgin) pursue that clown who insisted that the tyre blew while taxying to the runway, -----------------------------------------------------------

Believe it or not, latest evidence suggests that this may actually have occurred!

[greenslopes]

Yes that's right Casper, the flight crew realized the tyre had blown but elected to depart anyway cos they felt like it.......against Boeing Proc's and Co rqmnts.

You numb nut!

[NAMD]

A subsequent rumway inspection revealed what according to SACL safety officers was around half of one nose gear tyre.

Incorrect. It was a main that let go. Unless someone else popped one.

[walaper]

From a second hand source , initially they thought it was a nose wheel due to the loudness of the event on the flight deck but subsequently determined it was a main gear tyre. There is also no doubt that the event occurred on the takeoff run. Apologizes for sabotaging the thread:8

[HotDog]

due to the loudness of the event on the flight deck but subsequently determined it was a main gear tyre

I have experienced several main gear tyre failures which occured during the takeoff run and with takeoff thrust set, all you can hear is engine noise. However, I'm talking with 747 experience. Perhaps on the much smaller 737, a tyre burst could be audible on the flight deck but most tyre failures during the takoff run would not be explosive but more likely, a thread seperation like shown below.
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m246/adamtakach/Threadseperattion.jpg

[Casper]

Yes that's right Casper, the flight crew realized the tyre had blown but elected to depart anyway cos they felt like it.......against Boeing Proc's and Co rqmnts.

You numb nut!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid so, greenslopes, that is exactly what happened!

[Cypher]

Casper....
You want to put your name to that, with your address so we can sue the f#ck out of you for libel..?

Put up or shut up... money where your mouth is...

[greenslopes]

So then Casper, "do you feel lucky Punk?, Well do ya".

Numb Nut

[56P]

The report will prove Casper correct.

[Cypher]

I still stand by what I said.

Put up or Shut up.

You haven't given any evidence as to that is what really happened. It is just hearsay... You can't know what the crew were thinking at the time or what the situation was.. unless you are the afformentioned party...