B737 smoking brakes scenario

[framer]

What would you do if you are taxiing after landing in a 737 and the Tower inform you you have smoke coming from one of you main wheels?
My inclination would be to stop but not set the brakes if that is possible, and to ask for Rescue Fire Services to inspect the aircraft. If Rescue Fire confirm that it is smoke from the brakes and no flames sighted I would arrange to taxi onto a stand-off bay and disembark using stairs while the Fire Tender hovered nearby.
Can anyone poke any holes in that?

[Bealzebub]

No, that sounds eminently sensible to me.

[framer]

Thanks for the reply Bealzebub.
To take it further, if while taxiing to the standoff bay the Fire Rescue folk report seeing flames I am torn between two courses of action:

A) Set brakes to park and instruct the Fire Rescue personnel to extinguish the fire and wait a few moments for a report back as to weather it was easily extinguished. Or
B) Park the brakes and commence the evacuation checklist.

Normally in the case of fire I am geared towards evacuation but if it was grease on a brake unit and just a lick of flame and was contained within seconds I would hate to injure pax.
Curly one I know but I would like to know what others think.

[sigitas]

Hi,
As soon as there would be fire I'd call for evacuation using fwd and aft exits. (flames under fuel tanks anyway ;) )

[grounded27]

Most of my experience being with large, heavy cargo aircraft. I do not think I have parked one that did not have several smoking breaks. There is no reason to expect a fire, stay off the brakes as much as possible, get to the gate. The worst common case is a thermally deflated tire and it is much better to change on a gate than blocking a taxi-way.

[kookaburra]

The 73 classic brakes can smoke after the first landing on a new set.
Had this more than once.
Observant ATC would notice after landing and give enough info to not need to panic.
I'm led to believe it was a particular supplier and was told the solution was to 'bake' off residue from manufacture.

[con-pilot]

The 73 classic brakes can smoke after the first landing on a new set.

Same thing on the 727. Had this happen to me more than once as well. Once at a US Air Force Base and we damn near got covered in foam from about a dozen fire trucks before I could get out of aircraft and stop them.

Even after told them why the brakes were smoking, they really didn't believe me until I went to the main gear and put my hands on the tires and then the brakes.

[GA_flps1]

Burning tires and brakes are carefully accounted for during the design and certification of an aircraft. Usually it must look very bad imo before an evacuation with broken necks, backs and arms are a better option.

Unless there is a serious fire, do not let any liquids come in contact with the brakes. Especially not carbon brakes because the fumes can be lethal or cause life long lung diseases if inhaled.

I would probably stick my head out the window and have a look myself to assess the situation, turn the A/C and try to have the pax leave the plane upwind of the fire calmly without panic.

[framer]

Thanks for all the constructive replies.
This is quite interesting to me. Quite obviously the end result will come down to the Captain on the day and as can be seen from these quotes,


As soon as there would be fire I'd call for evacuation using fwd and aft exits. (flames under fuel tanks anyway

Burning tires and brakes are carefully accounted for during the design and certification of an aircraft. Usually it must look very bad imo before an evacuation with broken necks, backs and arms are a better option.

the courses of action could be quite different.
I guess the way in which the information is passed to the pilots will have a certain effect on the decision making.
My plan now is to research what Boeing have built into the aircraft as a protection for this scenario before committing to a a mindset of " if there's flames, evacuate".
Does anybody know what measures are in place or where I could get info?
Thanks again.

[BARKINGMAD]

As soon as the evacuation order is given, you might as well take a baseball bat, or the fire axe, and go into the cabin and pick out a fair proportion of the SLF and beat them silly, putting them in hospital?

I thought we were paid (not a lot) and trained to make reasoned decisions without being panicked into rash action?

Surrounded by the airfields finest yellow hats , I would want to keep my pax aboard, where they won't be struck by exploding tyre debris or affected by the toxic fumes from burning brake assemblies and/or tyres etc.

Is not the criteria "are they worse off aboard or whizzing down the slides" where many of them will end up with injuries as the statistics show, the ultimate justification for the decision whether or not to evacuate?

Or are we as a profession afraid of making a decision which just might be criticised by the armchair generals who pick over the event after?

Most of us recall the horror of the MAN 737-200 with the tail burnt off, but is that a reason to ask ones customers to abandon ship at the slightest pretext?

There are many more examples of intact undamaged 'frames on runways with not a scorch mark visible, apart from the underwear of the participants!

And don't forget the puff of white "smoke" which will be observed after discharging the engine or APU fire extinguisher bottles onto a hot assembly. Now that would be a sad event indeed if the call to jump was made on the basis of that observation!?

So why don't we brief that the evac checklist will only be executed if the pax/crew are worse off by staying aboard rather than the definite risk of injury posed by taking to the slides?

[A37575]

Burning tires and brakes are carefully accounted for during the design and certification of an aircraft. Usually it must look very bad imo before an evacuation with broken necks, backs and arms are a better option.

Unless there is a serious fire, do not let any liquids come in contact with the brakes. Especially not carbon brakes because the fumes can be lethal or cause life long lung diseases if inhaled.



That is a pretty serious statement about lethality or risk of life long lung disease. Would you have any published medical research documents to back up your assertion?