B190 Crew insight?

[Contract Dog]

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

[putt for dough]

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.

[V1... Ooops]

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

[Der absolute Hammer]

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.

[Spadhampton]

they were pouring / spraying water on hot brakes


That is friggen stupid beyond belief.

[Der absolute Hammer]

http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/398105-airlink-accident-george-7-december-09-a.html?highlight=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.

[Cave Troll]

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

[Der absolute Hammer]

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.

[Cave Troll]

Good point. I forgot about the bloody insurance. They take all the fun out of flying.

ct

[Der absolute Hammer]

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!

[Der absolute Hammer]

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?

[Cave Troll]

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

[Der absolute Hammer]

Man! This is getting really over heated!
How about we chuck a bucket of cold water over it all?

(Sweet smile).

[Contract Dog]

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

[diegrootwitbeen]

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?

[Contract Dog]

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 hanger for MX chacks and move her in tight spots if need be. I just cant prove it.

Dog

[Van Der]

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.

[Airplay]

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.

[Contract Dog]

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

[Der absolute Hammer]

Ken Lopez
P.O. Box 85
Wichita, KS 67201-0085 +1.316.676.6233
+1.316.676.8027 Fax
[email protected] ([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?

[Fuzzy Lager]

If there was a restriction it would be in section 2 of the POH/AFM. There isn't one so tow around to your hearts content, heavy light, uphill downhill, no problem. The gear is designed to take it.

[Contract Dog]

Thanks lads, finally got my reply from HBC (Hawker Beech Corp)


Your question regarding towing the Beech 1900 Airliner has been forwarded to my attention.

There are no HBC limitations that prohibit the practice you describe, and I have found no Warnings or Cautions that mention it. Possibly no one at HBC expected that an operator would adopt the practice. The only reason I can think of for an operator to do this is gravel runway operations. They may feel the taxiway from parking to start position is too contaminated to safely taxi. You didn't mention how far they were towing fully loaded and what type surface was involved.

Since Hawker Beechcraft has not tested or evaluated this practice, we are not in a position to comment on it's acceptability. Increased wear and tear on nose structure and nose landing gear components is certainly a possibility. More frequent inspections of nose structure associated with nose landing gear attachment and nose landing gear components should certainly be considered. I hope this information proves helpful. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me.

With Best Regards:

So, the old girl was never intended to do this, and so it is NOT acceptable!

Dog

[Der absolute Hammer]

the old girl was never intended to do this, and so it is NOT acceptable!

(Perhaps not absolutely exactly)


Possibly no one at HBC expected that an operator would adopt the practice.

IE: No one at Hawker ever intended the old girl to do that.

we are not in a position to comment on it's acceptability.

IE: On your own bud.


But glad you got it sorted. Hawker would certainly not cnsider themselves liable for any damage caused due to the actions you describe and surely neither would the insurance. The operator would be loony to continue the practice after you face them with your information.

[Der absolute Hammer]

If I may add please that on complete balance and worth nothing of course but I agree with suitcaseman.
They do not like the practice but can find nothing to prohibit it perhaps?

[Contract Dog]

Since Hawker Beechcraft has not tested or evaluated this practice, we are not in a position to comment on it's acceptability

Thats the bit that stood out for me, they wash their hands of it??

anyhow, see below for an example of how "missunderstanding" a proceedure can go wrong. The manufacturer never in their wildest dream though somone would operate this thing any different to what they said in the instructions.:E TOO FUNNY!

ONLY A MAN WOULD ATTEMPT THIS

Just try reading this without laughing till you cry!!!

Pocket Tazer Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.

A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Tazer for their anniversary submitted this:Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest.

The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie. What I came across was a100,000-volt, pocket/purse- sized tazer.

The effects of the tazer were supposed to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety....?? WAY TOO COOL!

Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button and pressed it against a metal surface at the same time, I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between theprongs. AWESOME!!!

Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave. Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two AAA batteries, right?

There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and then thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat.

But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong?

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and tazer in another.

The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; and a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water.

Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.

All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5"long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference (loaded with two itsy, bitsy AAA batteries); pretty cute really, and thinking to myself, 'no possible way!

'What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best ...
I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side so as to say, 'Don't do it stupid,' reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny lil ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and ...HOLY MOTHER OF.. . WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION . . . WHAT THE ....!!!

I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles no where to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs!

The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room.

Note: If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a tazer, one note of caution: there is NO such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor!

A three second burst would be considered conservative! A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape.

My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. The recliner was upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally was.

My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I had no control over the drooling.

Apparently I had crapped in my shorts, but was too numb to know for sure, and my sense of smell was gone. I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head, which I believe came from my hair. I'm still looking for my testicles and I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!

P.s... My wife can't stop laughing about my experience, loved the gift and now regularly threatens me with it! If you think education is difficult, try being stupid !!

Dog

[Der absolute Hammer]

As accomplished a piece of humourous thread drift as I have ever seen.

[Cave Troll]

What that story has to do with towing a 1900 I have no idea but it is a classic none the less.

There is no excuse for stupidity but at least it gives us all a good laugh.

ct

[ARENDIII]

It's like everything-everything in moderation is fine. You can tow all day to your heart's content if you wish. If you fly for the UN it becomes a real pain and a safety issue sometimes. They will tow you 30 metres if they can because then someone gets paid in US$. Get yourself a qualified tug driver and you should be okay. Ask him/her for their latest check if in doubt.
Tow and fly safely,
Arend III.

[malboroman]

Sounds like most the answers are there. Can be done with extra inspections on the load bearing nose gear strut.
If your company approves it first of all and they save extra start cycles, or they build the extra cost of the inspections into the contract..then not a problem.
But really ARENDIII, you should learn the name of your co pilot...you might even learn something from him/her. Or maybe you need to pay more attention in CRM. :ok:

[Staalburger]

Nothing in the limitations section of the aircraft flight manual with regards to this?

[lvdriver]

Our 1900's are pushed aroud our apron every day and have been for the last 5 years. to date no issues. Just make sure you have a qualified tug driver operating a decent tug and you will have no issues.

[woenwaar]

lvdriver ill get you current on the tug next time i see you!:p

[Malagant]

There might not be a problem pushing/towing on level ground but there might be a slope limitation. A fully fueled Gulfstream III has a limitation (cannot remember exact percentage) and cannot or should not be towed onto the ramp at Lanseria for instance as the slope exceeds the limitation.