View Full Version : TFS closed due Norwegian B738 RTO

Mr A Tis
23rd Nov 2015, 14:31
Norwegian B738 at Tenerife on Nov 23rd 2015, rejected takeoff, both nose tyres burst.

Aviation Herald :Incident: Norwegian B738 at Tenerife on Nov 23rd 2015, rejected takeoff, both nose tyres burst (http://avherald.com/h?article=48fc65ac)

Appears to have re-opened now after several hours of closure.

23rd Nov 2015, 15:29
In such a scenario, after the diversion, what next? Does the a/c wait and the crew rest, until TFS is open; but then what, as the crew are now out of FTL's? Does the a/c return empty after the diversion, but what happens to the pax on the wrong island? Who organises and pays for their transfer? They had a contract to go to TFS, but equally the diversion is outside the control of the carrier. I'd read it that no delay compensation is payable, but the onward transport is at the behest of the original carrier, but how? Ferry? What about any overnight costs incurred on the wrong island? And what then happens to the pax waiting on TFS? Perhaps the saving grace is it's winter with spare crews and a/c at home base; and not middle of summer with none of either.
Is it so the lobster/crab tugs need inflated nose wheels to shift an a/c? Now there's a re-design asking to be developed.

23rd Nov 2015, 15:45
I know someone who was on this flight. Very scary, apparently as there was a very loud bang followed by the RTO. Aircraft came to rest ~100m from the end of the runway so a very late rejection, by the sound of things (although stopping power is presumably reduced if you've no front tyres).

17 tonnes of fuel had to be offloaded before they could move it, too, adding to the delay.

Chesty Morgan
23rd Nov 2015, 15:53
(although stopping power is presumably reduced if you've no front tyres).

Actually better. A lower nose will reduce the wing alpha increasing weight on the main wheels and also increase the horizontal tail plane alpha increasing its downward force. Plus the drag of the now not very round front pair.

Steering, however, might be a problem. ;)

23rd Nov 2015, 16:07
Without getting into the whole speculation thing for this specific flight, what could cause both front tyres to blow like that? Presumably debris is more likely than a tyre or fitting fault if both went, or could one blowing take out the other?

23rd Nov 2015, 16:12
I'm thinking they hit something on the runway that damaged the nose gear tires - and that's what caused the RTO.

It's pretty hard to imagine how an RTO that didn't exit the runway could cause nose gear tires to blow.

23rd Nov 2015, 16:12
Very scary, apparently as there was a very loud bang followed by the RTO.

Is this suggesting the RTO was because of a loud bang, which was the nose wheel bursting? As they came to a stop so close to the end was this because of RTO brakes being disconnected, or because it was at a high speed? High speed RTO's due tyre bursts are a vibrant discussion topic.

I appreciate this will only be known inside NAS, but we could all learn, one day.

23rd Nov 2015, 16:21
Is this suggesting the RTO was because of a loud bang, which was the nose wheel bursting?

That's my understanding based on the conversation with someone who was there.

23rd Nov 2015, 16:59
Also, apparently it wasn't the nose gear, it was one of the mains, witness describes the plane leaning to one side after it came to rest.

southern duel
24th Nov 2015, 04:08
Not sure why it resulted in a lengthy runway closure. Dealt with many an aircraft which had burst tyres and become disabled. Should be a couple of hours at the most to jack the aircraft up change the tryes and tow off. Not sure why they had to de fuel ? The only issue may be the wheels were on the rims and the jack could not get under the jacking points between the wheels but this can be easily rectified by altering the jack to sit lower to the ground.

24th Nov 2015, 04:18
Av Herald has been corrected and now says right main gear not nose wheel. Also says runway re-opened after 4 hours

24th Nov 2015, 04:23
High speed RTO after a tyre burst? SOP at my outfit is to continue if within 20 kts of V1, provided engine indications are normal, burn off fuel and land at a suitable airfield, preferably below MLW.

Nil further
24th Nov 2015, 08:02
re: easy to identify a tyre burst :

Some years ago I was ferrying a a BAe 146 with a manufacturers test pilot in the RHS as my F/O .

On landing , both tyres on the RHS main gear blew as the aircraft had just left maintenance and the engineers had connected the anti skid valves the wrong way round .

It was both difficult to keep it on the runway and ascertain what was going on .

Neither the test pilot nor I had any idea what really happened until we were off the runway and on the taxiway .The tower advised they had heard bangs and Fire 1 confirmed the tyre bursts .

In a larger jet on the take off roll , very difficult to ascertain with precision that a tyre has burst.

Glen Livid
24th Nov 2015, 08:49
I diverted due to this yesterday but managed to get in and out of TFS later with everyone working hard to clear the backlog. Not a clue as to the cause but it was a typically gusty day at TFS with wind 050/25G35 when I arrived which could have added to control problems during the RTO. Apparently the aircraft was too heavy to jack so they had to defuel before they could shift it. Hey ho, another day in the office and everyone safely looked after by their professional pilots.

24th Nov 2015, 09:35
High speed RTO after a tyre burst? SOP at my outfit is to continue if within 20 kts of V1, provided engine indications are normal, burn off fuel and land at a suitable airfield, preferably below MLW.

And Boeing's advice too. Suitable airfield below MLW could well be destination. And if this was the cause of the RTO, a loud bang, and they ended up near the end of TFS Rwy, what would you have done at Lanzarote at the same speed?

Chesty Morgan
24th Nov 2015, 12:11
Totally different performance at Lanzagrotty. You're not likely to be at the same speed with the same amount of runway left so it's a bit of a daft question.

24th Nov 2015, 13:40
Awfully complex chaps ! Are you lot really Professional pilots ? BANG before or at V1...................STOP ! Determined to be Tyre burst,........................lots of comms with company but then with not much progress, six hour break in a Hotel, top up the tan, extends the FTL stuff and then, Pleeeze G, no help, so min 12 hr rest while they sort it out and you head to Playas and party on ! Don't forget though, work out the "stop drinkin time " . Blimey, where has the fun gone ? Pax love it too.In my day, they will have been hotac'd to a higher standard than their own bucket & spade operators and will be waving to you, in the cockpit as they board for the second attempt.

24th Nov 2015, 20:33
High speed RTO's are hazardous, the suggestion above to stop just because you heard a BANG is ridiculous. Unless the noise of unknown origin is accompanied by unequivocal evidence of an engine failure leading to significant loss of thrust, engine fire, uninhibited Master Warning or Master Caution (above whatever your Company's SOP speed is) the take off is recommended to be continued. A stop with tyre damage approaching V1 is a gamble because retardation is degraded by this type of failure resulting in an unquantifiable increase in accelerate/stop distance....which may be in excess of that available.

24th Nov 2015, 21:03
My friend on board says the bang occurred as he nose was lifted, followed by a huge amount of vibration. I honestly don't know if his recollection is correct, it seemed odd to me. I'm not a pilot but I thought that the nose was pulled up at V1 and V1 meant you were definitely taking off, but I'm happy to be corrected.

25th Nov 2015, 00:14
High speed RTO's are hazardous, the suggestion above to stop just because you heard a BANG is ridiculous.I've only been in one blown-tire incident, but 'BANG' doesn't do the quality of the sound justice. It might easily be a bomb removing vital bits that would be needed in flight.

25th Nov 2015, 04:29
...especially if one of those vital parts is a ruptured main fuel tank or a rear mounted engine ingested with rubber shrapnel.

25th Nov 2015, 07:30
The ratio of bombs going off during take off vs tire failures is?

Boeing is very clear, they do not recommend high speed rejects due to tire failures.

Kirks gusset
25th Nov 2015, 09:10
In 23 years on Boeing I have never considered an RTO above 80 Kts for a burst tire.. the "standard" SOPs were up to 80kts stop for any malfunction.. 80 Kts to V1 fire or fire warning, engine failure, inability of a/c to fly. Since when did a burst tire stop the a/c flying? . The general thoughts here seem to be the tire bursts were a result of a high speed RTO for " unknown reasons".? some difficult questions to be answered on the horizon !

25th Nov 2015, 09:48
2 x burst tyres in this case

25th Nov 2015, 10:39
Ours too. Up to 80k, stop for anything. Between 80 & V1 , only for engine failure, engine fire or (here's the thing NIGHTSTOP ;) OR, any other UNFLYABLE condition. I don't think, actually I know, LF would not stop just for a bang. Well, depends on what sort of bang (sic) but ohmigosh, here we go again with Pprune Skygods. Let us all consider the type of bang, the nature of the bang, what went or didn't go with the bang, was it unfyable (?), can bangs be unflyable ? Oh dear. I think we can tell the real pro's (often with tongue in cheek to add some humour )...........................oooops, not allowed. I'm with LF on this. Off to the hotel, stop on the way to buy a pair of leopardskin speedos & head for the pool.

compressor stall
25th Nov 2015, 11:12
My friend on board says the bang occurred as he nose was lifted, followed by a huge amount of vibration. I honestly don't know if his recollection is correct

It's possible that your friend heard the bang, then felt the deceleration as a nose down pitch, thereby thinking that they had already pitched up. (this is the same way simulators work).

And you are correct - if the nose was off the ground, there's no reason they'd be stopping...

25th Nov 2015, 14:45
spantax AGP sept 1982

DC-10 30 series fully loaded for JFK 381 pax plus 14 crew

high speed RTO at or past V1
due loud bang vibration and nose wheel shimmy

DC-10 overran runway, crossed a main road, hit a building, stopped mostly intact but caught fire in rear and centre section - a/c burnt out quickly but over 300 got out OK
sadly 50 or so did not - all at the back section

photos and pax report here https://tampagr8guy.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/the-day-that-changed-my-life-the-crash-of-spantax-flight-995/

Spantax Flight BX995 departed Madrid-Barajas at 09:36 on a charter flight to Málaga and New York. The DC-10 arrived at Málaga at 10:20 where 251 passengers embarked. The crew then taxied to the threshold of runway 14. Takeoff clearance was received at 11:58. During takeoff the copilot called out the 80 knots and 100 knots speeds. A short time before reaching V1 (162 kts), pieces of tread of a nose wheel tire started to detach. At or close to V1 a vibration was felt. The airplane continued to accelerate through VR. As the captain tried to rotate by applying up elevator, the vibration was of such magnitude that he feared that the plane might become uncontrollable after takeoff. He decided to abort the takeoff. At that point, with a maximum speed attained of 184 kts, there was 1295 m (4,250 feet) of runway left. The captain retarded the throttles and tried to select reverse thrust. The nr. 3 throttle slipped from his hands, causing a power asymmetry. The airplane veered slightly to the left. The Dc-10 overshot the runway at a speed of 110 kts, colliding with an ILS building, causing engine number 3 to separate. The airplane went through a fence and crossed a highway were it damaged three vehicles. It then collided with a farming construction, causing three quarters of the right wing to break off, as well as the right horizontal stabilizer. The aircraft stopped 450 m (1,475 feet) past the end of runway 14. A fire erupted in the rear of the fuselage.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The Commission determines the cause of the accident to be the fractional detachment of the retread of the right wheel of the nose gear, originating a strong vibration which could not be identified by the captain, leading him into the belief that the aircraft would become uncontrollable in flight, and thus deciding to abandon the take-off over VR.
The decision of aborting the take-off, though not in accordance with the standard operation procedure, is in this case considered reasonable, on the base of the irregular circumstances that the crew had to face, the short period of time available to take the decision, the lack of training in case of wheel failure and the absence of take-off procedures when failure other than that of the engines occurs."

25th Nov 2015, 18:35
It occurs to me that if both tires on one side blew more or less simultaneously, there would be very sudden yaw to that side that could easily be mistaken for a catastrophic engine failure - not a blow tire.

That's assuming of course the blown tires caused the RTO, not the other way around...

25th Nov 2015, 18:46
Perhaps one tyre blew, leaving the other one fully serviceable. Max braking whilst carrying twice the normal weight was probably what did for the second tyre.

26th Nov 2015, 09:40
Rog747, your post brings it all back. I was there. First to land after runway inspection and assurance that fire cover still available. Not nice turning final and landing with a burning wreck on the end of the runway.

Thread creeping, a bit, but it becomes interesting again. The DC10 was past VR. Definite GO situation but what a dilemma. Commander on the spot, again, uncomfortable about the flying quality of his aircraft and facing calamity if he rejects.

As a spotty FO on Tridents, we were party to one of our aircraft rejecting at or just above V1 at Bilbao after running into a long wet puddle and facing non-acceleration. Tough call again, eh ? He rejected and ground-looped as the end of the short runway threatened !Overview with 20/20 hindsight vision was that he should have continued. Lively debate in the Vanners for years later !

Then, sometimes you don't even know. During Command Training (sorry, testing) after Base Training (sorry, testing) we finally headed home with ATC telling us that we had left lots of rubber all over the runway. No bang, no swing, no vibration. Training Captain (sorry, Testing Captain) did deliver a masterful lesson in Command "thinking", leadership, CRM etc as we carried on to Base. Cripes, didn't even like the bloke but it was very useful demonstration of the skills we new Commanders were expected to demonstrate.

Oh yeah, still got the speedo's.

A and C
26th Nov 2015, 16:40
As at this point in the proceedings we don't know if it was one or both tyres that caused the loud "bang" and it is not SOP to stop for a blown tyre we have to assume that the reason for stopping was that directional control of the aircraft was in doubt....... And it IS SOP to stop for control problems.

Anyhow well done to the crew, no one hurt and no more damage to the aircraft just a lot of noise from the PPrune gallery Microsoft pilots.

26th Nov 2015, 19:42
Couple of photos from a local newspaper in here, just for the record.

El Aeropuerto Tenerife Sur vuelve a estar operativo | Diario de Avisos (http://www.diariodeavisos.com/2015/11/15-vuelos-desviados-en-aeropuerto-tenerife-sur-debido-al-bloque-pista/)

Fergus Kavanagh
26th Nov 2015, 20:41
Concorde ?

Chesty Morgan
26th Nov 2015, 21:12
Nope, that was the FE.