QF Brake Fire ML
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Brake Fire ML
VH-Cheer Up wrote:
Radio news this arvo reports (undefined) QF aircraft stranded on a taxiway at YMML following brakes fire after landing, any update?
Yeah, it was a 767 and I understand a hydraulic brake line leaked fluid onto hot brakes causing a lot of smoke. When we arrived it was surrounded by rescue fire vehicles. Blocked the only taxi-way (think it's E) for about 40 minutes leaving quite a queue of arriving traffic behind who couldn't get to the terminal. Airport was actually closed for landings for a short time due to the taxiway congestion.
Eventually, the 767 was towed to it's gate and the firies hosed the hydraulic fluid off the taxiway and things retured to normal.
Routine event, seemingly well handled.
Cheers
DC
Radio news this arvo reports (undefined) QF aircraft stranded on a taxiway at YMML following brakes fire after landing, any update?
Yeah, it was a 767 and I understand a hydraulic brake line leaked fluid onto hot brakes causing a lot of smoke. When we arrived it was surrounded by rescue fire vehicles. Blocked the only taxi-way (think it's E) for about 40 minutes leaving quite a queue of arriving traffic behind who couldn't get to the terminal. Airport was actually closed for landings for a short time due to the taxiway congestion.
Eventually, the 767 was towed to it's gate and the firies hosed the hydraulic fluid off the taxiway and things retured to normal.
Routine event, seemingly well handled.
Cheers
DC
Routine event
PS: It must have been there for a bl@@dy long time if it was still there when you got there from NZ!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem was with single runway ops and a busy time of the morning (we arrived about 0830 local), departures were pretty well flat out too. On top of that, the first 3 or 4 aircraft in the queue were already past the "point of no (re) turn" with regard to the single available taxiway back onto the operating runway.
I reckon the total time taken to clear the way was about 35 minutes. Lucky the peak arrivals time was about over or it would have been even messier.
I guess when there are major works programs underway, as there always seem to be at international airports, these things happen from time to time.
No comment about engineering practices at the big Q then? (ducking for cover now)
DC
I reckon the total time taken to clear the way was about 35 minutes. Lucky the peak arrivals time was about over or it would have been even messier.
I guess when there are major works programs underway, as there always seem to be at international airports, these things happen from time to time.
No comment about engineering practices at the big Q then? (ducking for cover now)
DC
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What could cause hot brakes? I thought runway 27/09 was well within normal cool brake landing distance available.
He went right to the end and came back up Echo, I could see the Firies holding where they normally do by 34 there with lights off etc then they just set upon him about halfway between N and 34. Normally if you're not having a happy day they chase you off the runway. Just all seemed odd.
By that stage I think there was already a couple 737s behind him and a 767 came off at November about the same time.
I wonder if would not have been a safer proposition to divert to Avalon where the runway length is no problem and less risk of a brake fire? Fire services at Avalon would have plenty of time to arrive and get into place.
I am sure a vote count among the passengers on the Qantas flight would have indicated that most would have preferred a non-drama flight even if it meant going to Avalon instead of Melbourne.
There is little doubt that times have changed with regard to flight safety perceptions. Schedule keeping and cost cutting seem to have priority over flight safety management. Even a 747 trans-Atlantic flight on three engines following engine close down immediately after take off, is now considered ops normal.
And how about the tail strike in the A340 out of London where airmanship and the flight manual dictated an immediate return to the departure point, but the captain (not necessarily the crew!) elected to continue to China. Schedule and cost issues again - or maybe in this case the well known loss of face syndrome?
I am sure a vote count among the passengers on the Qantas flight would have indicated that most would have preferred a non-drama flight even if it meant going to Avalon instead of Melbourne.
There is little doubt that times have changed with regard to flight safety perceptions. Schedule keeping and cost cutting seem to have priority over flight safety management. Even a 747 trans-Atlantic flight on three engines following engine close down immediately after take off, is now considered ops normal.
And how about the tail strike in the A340 out of London where airmanship and the flight manual dictated an immediate return to the departure point, but the captain (not necessarily the crew!) elected to continue to China. Schedule and cost issues again - or maybe in this case the well known loss of face syndrome?
Centaurus,
Lots of generalisations there!
Assuming that a landing on 27 in that config was legal, why not do it? At what point do you draw the line and go for THE safest option? This is the conundrum that confronts everyone in the left hand seat.
The 3-eng 747 decision was a reasonable call, I beleive, and they only got caught by another, unrelated failure.
The China Eastern incident is totally different to the two above incidents: it was just plain dumb, no two ways about it.
I had a chuckle at your comment "the captain, not necessarily the crew". A wise old friend once said to me: "The cockpit is not a committee". The CEO decides what is going to happen after considering all the inputs. The CEO is...the captain. Besides, what do you reckon the rest of the crew were saying? "Go for it boss!" thinks: "I'll get into your seat earlier!".
Lots of generalisations there!
Assuming that a landing on 27 in that config was legal, why not do it? At what point do you draw the line and go for THE safest option? This is the conundrum that confronts everyone in the left hand seat.
The 3-eng 747 decision was a reasonable call, I beleive, and they only got caught by another, unrelated failure.
The China Eastern incident is totally different to the two above incidents: it was just plain dumb, no two ways about it.
I had a chuckle at your comment "the captain, not necessarily the crew". A wise old friend once said to me: "The cockpit is not a committee". The CEO decides what is going to happen after considering all the inputs. The CEO is...the captain. Besides, what do you reckon the rest of the crew were saying? "Go for it boss!" thinks: "I'll get into your seat earlier!".
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
I am sure a vote count among the passengers
Last edited by Kaptin M; 2nd May 2005 at 06:44.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assuming that a landing on 27 in that config was legal, why not do it? At what point do you draw the line and go for THE safest option? This is the conundrum that confronts everyone in the left hand seat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point where I would draw the line is where I would assess that there was a very good chance of nicely cooked brakes and a hydraulic fluid leak combined to have the firecrew running all over the place and other aircraft inconvenienced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point where I would draw the line is where I would assess that there was a very good chance of nicely cooked brakes and a hydraulic fluid leak combined to have the firecrew running all over the place and other aircraft inconvenienced.
If you're gunna have a problem, you may as well have it at the airport you wanted to go to!
Two days later thinks: "what was all the fuss about? Pax got to land where they wanted, a few jets got stuffed around, but hey that happens in the holding pattern every day, and the company didn't have to recover an aircraft from pornsville". Good call, I reckon!
Two days later thinks: "what was all the fuss about? Pax got to land where they wanted, a few jets got stuffed around, but hey that happens in the holding pattern every day, and the company didn't have to recover an aircraft from pornsville". Good call, I reckon!
If he had gone to avalon and everything was fine and dandy,there would have been more than afew pi....d off pax,as well as the company. And who do you think would take the blame?Oh and by the way my manual still tells me to carry on
if l lose a donk(4 engines) once everything has been considered.
if l lose a donk(4 engines) once everything has been considered.
