Virgin Blue Emergency Landing
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blip, if you reread the 1st post you will see also that a main gear tyre was replaced after landing. I don't know that facts (nosewheel/mainwheel) for sure just what I'm reading here on prune. (BBC aren't reporting it, and I can't sleep) 1 sheep 2.......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry guys I've just searched for the video and can't seem to find it?
Basically Boeing said for a tyre failure don't reject above 80 kts as your ability to stop within the runway available is severly restricted. Plenty of RTO's for tyre failure at high speeds have caused over runs in the past.
Basically Boeing said for a tyre failure don't reject above 80 kts as your ability to stop within the runway available is severly restricted. Plenty of RTO's for tyre failure at high speeds have caused over runs in the past.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the facts so far, if the incident occurred above 80kts, a 'continue' is the correct option(depending on other circumstances of course), I would have done the same. Next if the crew were not aware of the tyre blow out until the tyre was found, then there's nothing wrong with continuing. The gear is already up, it is not a 'req'd to land at nearest suitable' problem. Continuing on the plan is the lowest workload option to assess the alternatives & it burns fuel for landing. ie lower touchdown speed abeit by just a few knots etc. Who knows they may have been above MLW.
Of course if they knew of the blow out when it occurred, then initially climbing out on the plan with the gear down to assess the problem may have worked better(less chance of internal damage). Once an eval was done the a return to SYD. I wasn't there, but the crew appeared to have done a great job. Many variables for this, & hindsight is a great advantage. Always good to discuss events like this though.
Of course if they knew of the blow out when it occurred, then initially climbing out on the plan with the gear down to assess the problem may have worked better(less chance of internal damage). Once an eval was done the a return to SYD. I wasn't there, but the crew appeared to have done a great job. Many variables for this, & hindsight is a great advantage. Always good to discuss events like this though.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media - sigh.....
I'd love to see the media (and Virgin) pursue that clown who insisted that the tyre blew while taxying to the runway, and that he was wild with anger because Virgin had put his life in danger. Obviously he is an aviation expert, because - lets face it - he was on the plane. I imagine being an expert he knew straight away what had happened. Must have been a handful for the cabin crew, what with him being wild with anger and all.
The media (ABC was the one I heard) chose to interview him and then air that interview Australia-wide with hardly a comment from themselves. I wonder how many others they interviewed who just shrugged their shoulders and said the flight was ok apart from a bit of inconvenience?
P.S. Funny how the vast number of aviation experts in the media seem to like their landings in just 3 categories - normal, emergency, and crash.
The media (ABC was the one I heard) chose to interview him and then air that interview Australia-wide with hardly a comment from themselves. I wonder how many others they interviewed who just shrugged their shoulders and said the flight was ok apart from a bit of inconvenience?
P.S. Funny how the vast number of aviation experts in the media seem to like their landings in just 3 categories - normal, emergency, and crash.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, what does BOEING say about this situation....
Boeing FCTM 8.22, (Flight Crew Training Manual) B737NG
[Abbreivated to avoid copyright infringements and save my fingers]
[My comments]
Tire Failure during or after Takeoff
If the crew suspects a tire failure during takeoff, the Air Traffic Services facility serving the departing airport should be advised for the potential for tire pieces remaining on the runway.
[Well the crew by the sounds of it didn't even know a tire had burst. And ATC probably didn't even know it was that particular flight that had had a burst tire]
The crew should consider continuing to the destination [my emphesis] unless there are indications that other damage has occurred. (non-normal engine indications, engine vibrations, hydraulic system failures, leaks, etc.)
[Consider the considerations considered in this case]
Continuing to the destination will allow the aircraft weight to be reduced normally and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low.
____________________
The manual then goes on to Landing with a Flat Tire and that Boeing airplanes are designed so that the landing gear and the remaining tire(s) have adequate strength to accommodate a flat nose gear or main tire.
Perfectly adequate and safe to continue on to destination, simple as that.
So ROH111, it wasn't just the PIC or engineerings opinion that they acted on, it was BOEING PROCEDURE and Boeing built the damn thing so you'd hope they damn well knew what they were talking about. They obviously had no indications of damage or else they would have landed back at Sydney as per BOEING PROCEDURE. The bloody flight deck lights up like a Christmas tree if there were any abnormals.
So in conclusion, no.. you haven't interpreted this myth correctly at all....
Boeing FCTM 8.22, (Flight Crew Training Manual) B737NG
[Abbreivated to avoid copyright infringements and save my fingers]
[My comments]
Tire Failure during or after Takeoff
If the crew suspects a tire failure during takeoff, the Air Traffic Services facility serving the departing airport should be advised for the potential for tire pieces remaining on the runway.
[Well the crew by the sounds of it didn't even know a tire had burst. And ATC probably didn't even know it was that particular flight that had had a burst tire]
The crew should consider continuing to the destination [my emphesis] unless there are indications that other damage has occurred. (non-normal engine indications, engine vibrations, hydraulic system failures, leaks, etc.)
[Consider the considerations considered in this case]
Continuing to the destination will allow the aircraft weight to be reduced normally and provide the crew an opportunity to plan and coordinate their arrival and landing when the workload is low.
____________________
The manual then goes on to Landing with a Flat Tire and that Boeing airplanes are designed so that the landing gear and the remaining tire(s) have adequate strength to accommodate a flat nose gear or main tire.
Perfectly adequate and safe to continue on to destination, simple as that.
So ROH111, it wasn't just the PIC or engineerings opinion that they acted on, it was BOEING PROCEDURE and Boeing built the damn thing so you'd hope they damn well knew what they were talking about. They obviously had no indications of damage or else they would have landed back at Sydney as per BOEING PROCEDURE. The bloody flight deck lights up like a Christmas tree if there were any abnormals.
So in conclusion, no.. you haven't interpreted this myth correctly at all....
Last edited by Cypher; 27th May 2009 at 01:47. Reason: grammar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone shed some light on who might have carried out the turn around check on this aircraft.Do lame's or pilots or porters do the walk around checks prior to each flight.
Walk arounds are always done by one of the operating pilots for that flight, depending the port of departure an engineer may do a walk around as well. In this case at Sydney the engineers always do the receive and dispatch , so one would presume they do a walk around as well!!
With regard to porter or pit crew they can walk around the aircraft as much as they like, but are far from trained to find any faults with an aircraft! Fact! Having said that most if these guys/girls are around aircraft all day long and generally can pick up a very basic problem with an aircraft when they see one. They are not to be relied on for inspections, just like you would do at a normal turn around at a remote airport.
With regard to porter or pit crew they can walk around the aircraft as much as they like, but are far from trained to find any faults with an aircraft! Fact! Having said that most if these guys/girls are around aircraft all day long and generally can pick up a very basic problem with an aircraft when they see one. They are not to be relied on for inspections, just like you would do at a normal turn around at a remote airport.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOZ523 knew about the burst tyre at most within 2-3 minutes of becoming airborne (I believe they knew as soon as it happened) as they had a company 737 depart straight after them and advised the tower that there was rubber debris about half way down the runway. VOZ523 advised departures that they believed it was from their aircraft. A subsequent rumway inspection revealed what according to SACL safety officers was around half of one nose gear tyre. The runway was closed for almost 30 minutes whilst all of the debris was removed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something to think about in this situation is that V1 speeds are based on an ability to stop the a/c with wheel braking only. A burst / missing tyre would alter the braking performance of the jet hence possibly reducing the actual V1 speed below the calculated V1. So a reject at V1 may result in an overrun. Perhaps only a small chance of this but still a possibility? 
Edit: already mentioned I didn`t read every post!
Edit: already mentioned I didn`t read every post!
Well we shovel shi*t on the media for their famous "beatups" but having read two pages of absolute rubbish I am amazed that some of you so called "professional pilots" can stoop to the same level.
Bar the poster who included references of the Boeing FCTM not a single post made any sense nor did it add to anything other than to whip the mob into a frenzy of chest beating and "I'm right" and "your wrong" posts.
They did what they get paid to do .....and well!
That's it!
Bar the poster who included references of the Boeing FCTM not a single post made any sense nor did it add to anything other than to whip the mob into a frenzy of chest beating and "I'm right" and "your wrong" posts.
They did what they get paid to do .....and well!
That's it!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on a slight side note - anyone know why the DJ from Melbourne to Hobart this evening (Wednesday) turned back mid-flight? Understandably the captain was a bit vague in saying a "light had come on in the cockpit"
I had tyre strength demonstrated to me in a controlled fashion about ten years ago. A wheel unit with tyre on it was inflated to 1900PSI (inside a cage) ....blow me down it didn't let go. I was pretty impressed. It was not a 737 tyre but i imagine they are also strong.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to see the media (and Virgin) pursue that clown who insisted that the tyre blew while taxying to the runway, -----------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, latest evidence suggests that this may actually have occurred!
Believe it or not, latest evidence suggests that this may actually have occurred!
Yes that's right Casper, the flight crew realized the tyre had blown but elected to depart anyway cos they felt like it.......against Boeing Proc's and Co rqmnts.
You numb nut!
You numb nut!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A subsequent rumway inspection revealed what according to SACL safety officers was around half of one nose gear tyre.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: A happy place
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a second hand source , initially they thought it was a nose wheel due to the loudness of the event on the flight deck but subsequently determined it was a main gear tyre. There is also no doubt that the event occurred on the takeoff run. Apologizes for sabotaging the thread