View Full Version : Tyres burst on MyTravel A320

5th Aug 2003, 02:17

I have just seen an article on the BBC site about a MyTravel A320 aircraft they suffered three burst tyres on landing in Cardiff. Here is the article:

"Nearly 200 air passengers were forced to disembark on the runway after three of their plane's tyres burst on impact as it landed.
The 162 passengers were aboard the My Travel A320 aircraft travelling back from Tenerife to Cardiff International Airport when the incident occurred at around midnight.

No one was hurt in the incident, and the plane was able to stop safely.

An investigation to discover why the tyres burst has been launched by the holiday company.

A spokeswoman for My Travel said: "The plane is operated for us by Sky Services of Canada.

"It landed safely and remained on the runway.

"The cause is being fully investigated by the relevant authorities because of that it is not appropriate for us to speculate on the cause of accident.

"Airline crews are trained to deal with this kind of incident.

"We will offer help and support to passengers," she added.

A spokeswoman for Cardiff International Airport confirmed that the emergency procedures were invoked during the incident.

"It was a standard routine procedure," she said.

"Emergency vehicles including fire tenders were put on standby but were not needed.

"It was a fairly straight forward operations and the plane will be back in operation today," she added.

The passengers, who had to be taken off the plane while it was on the runway, were forced to leave behind their luggage.

The travel company is arranging for the bags to be returned to the passengers. "


5th Aug 2003, 02:45
Wasn't one of the Skyservice 320s involved in a tailstrike on landing at BRI not so long ago? (Same one?)

5th Aug 2003, 03:07
must be a low news day over there (mumble mumble)

BAe 146-100
5th Aug 2003, 03:41

akerosid, how did it have a tailstrike on landing? Did the pilot pull up too high?

BAe 146-100

5th Aug 2003, 05:05
BAe 146-100,

Pardon if I am missing the point regarding your question, but if you're asking if tailstrikes can occur during landing, the answer is yes.

5th Aug 2003, 05:09
The Skyservice 320 that suffered a tailstrike at BRS in June is C-GTDK.

This aircraft is now back in service at BRS and is flying fulltime from there for MyTravel along with a MyTravel 320, so it is highly unlikely that this was the aircraft at CWL.

By coincidence there is a current thread in Airlines, Airports and Routes under the heading 'Skyservice into BFS' where this is alluded to.

Jordan D
5th Aug 2003, 05:20
Sorry for sounding stupid .... (and please don't flame), but what's a tale strike?


5th Aug 2003, 05:21
Past experience with the standard of SkyService maintenance would lead me to the conclusion that it was very possible that the tyre pressures may have not been checked for a considerable while ;)

5th Aug 2003, 06:01
Jordon, a tail strike is simply when, on take off or landing the pilot 'pulls back' too much causing the rear of the aircraft to strike the runway.

763 jock
5th Aug 2003, 06:04
I would have thought it highly likely that SSV would have contracted a 145 company for the nuts and bolts...........:confused:

Time 2 Spare
5th Aug 2003, 06:52

Seems you need some of that for your mouth (or at least your keyboard)! Never let the facts get in the way of an oportunity to slag someone, right? The SSV base engineer in CWL is a friend of mine, and I'm offended by your post. He is a true professional and would never release an aircraft in a sub standard condition. If you're at all mature, you'll edit your post and apologise accordingly.

I am quite sure that the investigation will reveal that the flight crew correctly responded to a brake system problem, and that tyre pressures had nothing to do with it!

5th Aug 2003, 10:59
Past experience with the standard of Skyservice maintenance would lead me to the conclusion that it is very possible that you are blowing smoke out your ass! As an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, I take great offence at your statement.

Care to back it up with some facts?

5th Aug 2003, 18:18
Yes HiSpeedTape, wind your neck in. It is the excellent work that our engineering colleagues do on the ground that keeps us safely in the air. I have spent considerable time with SSV and their engineering is as good as any. Talk about engaging brain before opening mouth :rolleyes: Which company do you "engineer" for HiSpeed ?

5th Aug 2003, 22:11
HiSpeedTape.... thought you were a pilot ?

6th Aug 2003, 01:24
Skyservice A320 - Identical to the one that tailscraped at BRS.

Early indications suggest some kind of on board computer failure.

Passengers and onlookers say that reverse thrust was not used.

***THE TIRES DID NOT BURST ON IMPACT*** they burst as the aircraft skidded down the runway stopping about 20ft from the end at an apx 20 degree angle to the centerline.

3 tires burst in the skid one was let down later by emergency crews.

The skyservice engineers are very proffesional and highly efficient there is no way that the aircraft would have been released sub standard.

The aircraft was made safe and then the passengers were disembarked and bused back to the terminal, no big deal.

The passengers carried thier hand luggage off the aircraft as normal, and the majority claimed there bags as normal, they were certainly not forced to leave thier luggage! Passengers were given the option of having their luggage delivered to avoid the wait, under the circumstances.

The plane remained on the runway for about 4 hours, after 2 hours the runway re-opened at a reduced length with the A320 still in situe.

The plane resumed normal service the following day after repacment parts were flown in. In the mean time BRS's Skyservice was used to operate the routes.

This information is only what I have gathered from the eyewittness accounts of airport staff and subsequent rumors.

6th Aug 2003, 03:39
Both maintenance and crew training are questionable at best at SSV. Unfortunately, SSV is an accident waiting to happen. Don't expect too many SSV guys to publicly admit this though. Some of the guys here defending SSV are "fishermen that won't call their catch stink." It's that simple.

trimtank 2
6th Aug 2003, 05:09
Here we go again:{ Highspeed and Oscardelta, methinks you are complaining because there are a bunch of Canadians pissing in your backyard. If SSV's maintenance and crews are so suspect do you really think MYtravel would continue to use them year in and out with talks of even more aircraft and people over here in the future. And I believe that AIR2000 is getting in on it as well. What evidence do you have anyways ? You two should stop crying and face the reality that maybe what YOU have to offer isn't quite good enough:ok:

6th Aug 2003, 07:50
Oops - I seem to have touched a few raw nerves here don't I. Sorry if I've upset anybody but I only speak as I find. I too have some good friends within SkyService maintenance.

Well.. I have had the dubious pleasure of maintaining A320's(including the one involved in the incident) for.... wait for it.... SSV! . Where on a number of occasions pressure had been applied by SkyService to have defects signed off. I'm glad to say that even the SSV engineers refused to sign for some of them. Our orders were that we were not to defer items in the tech log but instead to record them on worksheets and keep them on file until either spares arrived or the aircraft went to the hangar for a check (usually the latter). This gave the appearance to MY Travel that the SSV aircraft were operating without any deferals when in fact each aircraft had tens of defects. We were also told that when any defect was intially reported, we should write it off as having passed a BITE test or whatever and then that would give SSV an extra day for the MEL limit because (and this is in the words of the SSV UK maintenace managers) "We are here to make money - right". Obviously that instruction was ignored much to the annoyance of some at SSV.

As for the standard of their own day to day servicing... well I've seen what I've seen and that's about as much as I can say.

TrimTank 2
It seems that in this case MYT and A2K are looking at the financial side rather than the safety aspect. I seem to remember a couple of years ago, when SSV were operating on behalf of AIH on the Hajj, AIH had to send their own A330 out to Indonesia because SSV had had their ETOPS approval removed because of maintenance errors!

Why did the tyres burst? - there are two braking systems with antiskid and one without but by using regulated braking to 1000 psi you should be able to avoid a locked wheel condition anyway. The crew would have been aware of a BSCU channel fault and taken the necessary measures as per ECAM and abnormal checklists.

What makes you think that? Well I guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility that I could be both is it?

You have hit the nail on the head - an accident waiting to happen.

Anyway - apologies once more for any home truths that may have hurt. I don't mean to offend where it's not warranted.


6th Aug 2003, 09:03
It takes real balls to tell the truth about sub-standard operations in this industry without pissing a whole bunch of people off that are in obvious denial. What amazes me is the extent to which companies, particularly like SSV, will go to cover things up - not only in their maintenance but throughout their entire operations. It amazes me even more to see them get away with it. Like you, I have experienced this first hand as well (I spare the details - they are endless just like some of their lists of snags on their airplanes).

Those who defend this type of practice are just as criminal or simply ignorant to the fact that they work for a "shoe string" operator that will do whatever it takes to put a profit into the pockets of the guys up top.

Some of us are so happy to have jobs, particuarly in these lean and mean times that we will sacrifice our own integrity and rebrand it economics to protect these nothing but a poor excuse for an airline.

When judgment day finally comes; and it will, I hope those so willing to contibute to the cause will be just as willing to answer.

That's my piece with no more to add to this topic. It's the truth and the truth I am sure will upset many. It usually does; so let it rip...

6th Aug 2003, 10:14
Is Transport Canada listening? Somethings mentioned here would never have been allowed (tolerated) in my organization(s).

trimtank 2
6th Aug 2003, 11:20
It takes balls to post on a forum? Come on now... It would take balls to do something about unsafe practices, If you two are not willing to do something about it , get off your soapbox and kiss my brown star. From what I understand SSV just completed a national Transport Canada audit and did very well, but I am sure you will spew some more crap about that as well. Not only are you guys crybabies you are cowards as well:cool:

6th Aug 2003, 16:13
I could be wrong here, and will gladly take corrections...

I spent most of Monday at EGFF, and I think I am right in saying that the A320 in question lost a tire earlier in the day.... the airport closed for a very short time whilst something was going on (I was flying at the time), and I was told that the 320 had lost a tyre.

Later in the day, it came back from somewhere, and the smell of burning rubber when it landed was strong enough to raise comments over on the south side.... we don't get to smell rubber very often, but this time it STANK. No sign of reverse thrust being used either.

Was this all the same plane? Are these facts facts? Are they connected?


6th Aug 2003, 16:26
Is the pool up to temperature, well I'd better dive in then !

The problems encountered by SSV in Indonesia did not result in their ETOPS being withdrawn, they stopped it themselves pending engineering inspections on C-FBUS. The aeroplane had been operating around active volcanoes during it's period in Indonesia and that was alledged to be part of the cause of the engine shutdowns.

I flew C-FBUS in the LHS the following year under a subcontract for MYT and found that not only were SSV's flight training very good, but their engineering back up was good as well. At no time were we asked to defer, cover or ignore tech problems and I can personally say that I was completely happy working for them.

6th Aug 2003, 16:31

Why do I think you are?....'cause you said so..., but of course you could be both


Dumplin G60
7th Aug 2003, 02:37
Hello HighSpeedTape. Rest of this edited.. pathetic, childish post attempting to out another poster. Grow up.

Keep it clean....

7th Aug 2003, 09:06

Hmmm.. Well one of the things that surprised me was how easy it was for SSV to gain extensions on MEL items from Transport Canada. It would appear that all they had to do was convince Transport Canada that they were unable to procure parts for defects and magically a 10 day extension to the already 9 day old MEL limit was granted. This happened several times and for defects that could be easily corrected with easily obtainable parts. If SSV did not have the parts in their UK inventory they were readily available from pool or on loan (I know because on these occasions, with the MEL drop dead date looming Stock checks revealed that the required parts were available and this option was presented to them every time but they never took it up.) I suspect that SSV found it cheaper to pull the wool over the eyes of Transport Canada.
MEL time limit extensions or permission to operate outside of the MEL could be reasonably requested if the aircraft was in some place at the back of beyond but it wasn't. It was within a 3 hour drive of a readily available source of spares from MYT, Air France and FLS and within a 45 minute drive of SSV's main UK spares base.

I wouldn't know about cowardice. I know that on occasion MORs and ASRs have been filed for breaches of the MEL, specifically the lack of implementation of MEL requirements for maintenace actions and/or operational restrictions. This is the correct way to report these "lapses" and the authorities should deal with it (if they ever got to see them after SSV had handled them). I don't know the end result and to elaborate would be guesswork.