Virgin Blue Emergency Landing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Blue Emergency Landing
Quote: Yahoo7.com.au
A Virgin Blue flight has made an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport after one of its tyres burst.
Flight DJ523 from Sydney to Coolangatta made an unscheduled precautionary landing at Brisbane about 2.30pm (AEST), a Virgin Blue spokeswoman said.
It's been reported a nose-tyre on the plane burst on take-off in Sydney.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman has been quoted as saying staff spotted tyre rubber on the runway after the plane departed for Coolangatta.
After landing without incident, crews found one of the tyres on the main landing gear had burst, and replaced the tyre.
The plane then taxied to the bay, where 109 passengers on board disembarked and were put on buses to the Gold Coast.
.........
A Virgin Blue flight has made an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport after one of its tyres burst.
Flight DJ523 from Sydney to Coolangatta made an unscheduled precautionary landing at Brisbane about 2.30pm (AEST), a Virgin Blue spokeswoman said.
It's been reported a nose-tyre on the plane burst on take-off in Sydney.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman has been quoted as saying staff spotted tyre rubber on the runway after the plane departed for Coolangatta.
After landing without incident, crews found one of the tyres on the main landing gear had burst, and replaced the tyre.
The plane then taxied to the bay, where 109 passengers on board disembarked and were put on buses to the Gold Coast.
.........
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike duplicated redundancy systems, tyres are not certified to carry the load of 2 tyres on 1 tyre only. One could easily argue that if the tyre let go around V1 speed, then the prudent course is to continue take-off and gather as much info as possible. Diverting to BNE reduces the fuel load, by 2 tonnes or so, and can only be better than most/all other alternatives. Seems to me that the Virgin crew performed optimally, (not knowing all the circumstances, of course).
Well done the crew.
Well done the crew.
of course one tyre can support the weight of the aircraft.
And Syd-Bne in a 737 burns 3 ton, more if you know you're landing on a blown tyre.
And Syd-Bne in a 737 burns 3 ton, more if you know you're landing on a blown tyre.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies Goat, I only sourced my info from the manufacturer.
http://ap.bridgestone.co.jp/pdf/Care...aintenance.pdf
More than 2 decades since I flew 737's between SYD & BNE, but it used to be about 2.2 tonnes burn then. That's progress.
Sorry 'bout that ol' chap, I'll try to do better next time.
http://ap.bridgestone.co.jp/pdf/Care...aintenance.pdf
More than 2 decades since I flew 737's between SYD & BNE, but it used to be about 2.2 tonnes burn then. That's progress.
Sorry 'bout that ol' chap, I'll try to do better next time.
An incident occured, as some have said, on the takeoff run... V1 is at times too late to reject a take off for anything other than a serious incident... Post 80 or 100 knots, pilot's should be go minded... If this happened early in the take off run, I am sure the pilot's would have rejected the take off.... I therefore assume it occured post 100kt's or 80kts or whatever Virgin decide to use...
BUT to then fly all the way to another destination once an incident has occured to me does not constitute "that the Virgin crew performed optimally" nor that the, "Crew handled the incident very well..."
They left a suitable aerodrome to proceed to another airport of greater duration other than one that was directly below them.. how is that not a breach of safety? By FAR I am not saying that this replicates the Concorde accident, but struth, what sort of other damage MAY have occured... I know that by holding or diverting to another aerodrome would have incurred the same time airbone to burn fuel off, but being closer to Sydney would SURELY be safer than flying all up the East Coast away from the departure aerodrome potentially jepodising passenger safety!!
Oh, but this isn't Qantas, so let's praise the pilots, if this was QF my goodness, the roof would have caved in with abuse!!!!!
BUT to then fly all the way to another destination once an incident has occured to me does not constitute "that the Virgin crew performed optimally" nor that the, "Crew handled the incident very well..."
They left a suitable aerodrome to proceed to another airport of greater duration other than one that was directly below them.. how is that not a breach of safety? By FAR I am not saying that this replicates the Concorde accident, but struth, what sort of other damage MAY have occured... I know that by holding or diverting to another aerodrome would have incurred the same time airbone to burn fuel off, but being closer to Sydney would SURELY be safer than flying all up the East Coast away from the departure aerodrome potentially jepodising passenger safety!!
Oh, but this isn't Qantas, so let's praise the pilots, if this was QF my goodness, the roof would have caved in with abuse!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing with unknown tyre/wheel/flap etc. damage, at an aerodrome with a substantial portion of both runways surrounded by water, is your preferred option, well OK then, when you're the captain that will be your decision.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A blown tyre is no big deal and wouldn't be noticed on the flight deck of a 737. Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire? More than likely closer to destination then the origin of the flight. Decision to divert to BNE probably due to advice from maintenance control due to maintenace facilities and spares. Certainly wouldn't call it an emergency landing.
ROH111, I didnt realise you work for a daily newspaper.
Endangering passenger safety - really??
I wasnt there, but I am pretty sure that if the crew had thought that the aircraft was in any compromised they would have returned to Sydney.
I cannot see how they endangered anything or anyone
Endangering passenger safety - really??
I wasnt there, but I am pretty sure that if the crew had thought that the aircraft was in any compromised they would have returned to Sydney.
I cannot see how they endangered anything or anyone
I guess you meant Sydney when you said "runways surrounded by water..." Yeah I guess landing on a runway you calculated as too short is as unproffesional as you can get.. If you run off the end and end up in the drink, is about as dangerous as running off the end of the runway into the dirt catching on fire, I don't see your point BSD.
HotDog: "Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire?"
Well I hardly think that ATC would allow aircraft to depart or arrive on a runway contaminated with blown bits of rubber all over it, so one would think that the crew knew about it very very soon after take off, point aside, I agree with you that engineering can advise the Pilot In Command on their OPINION on what action should be taken, but to leave a more than suitable (excuse the water surrounding the airport like a deserted island...... god I still don't get the point you were trying to make BSD) to fly far far away without any knowledge of what further damage could have been done to the aircraft... im not is saying crazy, I just thought the opinion of CASA and safety in general, is that you can't/shouldn't over fly a suitable aerdrome to proceed to another without a damn good reason...
Tell me if I have interpreted this "myth" incorrectly...
HotDog: "Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire?"
Well I hardly think that ATC would allow aircraft to depart or arrive on a runway contaminated with blown bits of rubber all over it, so one would think that the crew knew about it very very soon after take off, point aside, I agree with you that engineering can advise the Pilot In Command on their OPINION on what action should be taken, but to leave a more than suitable (excuse the water surrounding the airport like a deserted island...... god I still don't get the point you were trying to make BSD) to fly far far away without any knowledge of what further damage could have been done to the aircraft... im not is saying crazy, I just thought the opinion of CASA and safety in general, is that you can't/shouldn't over fly a suitable aerdrome to proceed to another without a damn good reason...
Tell me if I have interpreted this "myth" incorrectly...
At or after 80 knots Syd to Ool I would certainly continue in the event of (any) tyre failure.
Stopping performance is more likely to be diminished than go-performance and once airborne if the wheels all retract snugly then I would continue to my destination if it's a well equipped airport or if to a well equipped airport near my destination (ie if Maroochy or Coolie go to Brisbane).
If the tyre was shredded and uncontained it wouldn't retract, it would hit one of those little doohickeys on the fairing and the gear would fall back down presenting the crew with red gear lights... but that's a different story to today's.
Once I have accepted that I'm taking it into the air I may as well fly to my destination as there's no point landing at my origin (in this case Sydney) as I would be at a higher weight than I need to be and it would unnecessarily alarm the pax. VB learned from that mess with VBT that OOL is not a great place to fix aeroplanes beyond the simple changing of tyres and that a blown tyre can lead to maintenance issues beyond just the wheel change.
VB as an organisation does learn from experience, and having flown with both gentlemen on this flight I have no hesitation that they would have acted with the responsibility and good judgement expected of us all.
I am aware that in the event of a tyre failure its "axle mate" - as Bridgestone poetically put it - will need changing but believe it can be expected to hold up until then.
Stopping performance is more likely to be diminished than go-performance and once airborne if the wheels all retract snugly then I would continue to my destination if it's a well equipped airport or if to a well equipped airport near my destination (ie if Maroochy or Coolie go to Brisbane).
If the tyre was shredded and uncontained it wouldn't retract, it would hit one of those little doohickeys on the fairing and the gear would fall back down presenting the crew with red gear lights... but that's a different story to today's.
Once I have accepted that I'm taking it into the air I may as well fly to my destination as there's no point landing at my origin (in this case Sydney) as I would be at a higher weight than I need to be and it would unnecessarily alarm the pax. VB learned from that mess with VBT that OOL is not a great place to fix aeroplanes beyond the simple changing of tyres and that a blown tyre can lead to maintenance issues beyond just the wheel change.
VB as an organisation does learn from experience, and having flown with both gentlemen on this flight I have no hesitation that they would have acted with the responsibility and good judgement expected of us all.
I am aware that in the event of a tyre failure its "axle mate" - as Bridgestone poetically put it - will need changing but believe it can be expected to hold up until then.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely no guarantee that it's 'axle mate' can carry the load. (although experience shows that it probably can).
I'm sure you read on the link I provided that the 'axle mate' must be immediately removed and scrapped.
regards
I'm sure you read on the link I provided that the 'axle mate' must be immediately removed and scrapped.
regards
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BSD, If you want to claim you source your info from the manufacturer, at least get the right one. Try Goodyear. Or actually, since most of them are retreads, try whoever does that. In ML at least, that's still Goodyear.
The tyres "axle mate" is better off supporting it's blown mate when the a/c is 2.5 to 3 tonnes less in landing weight, and cold, rather that pretty much right after take off. (Heavier a/c and much hotter) As long as the gear retracts normally, and no other sytems are an issue, then going to Bn isn't an issue.
The tyres "axle mate" is better off supporting it's blown mate when the a/c is 2.5 to 3 tonnes less in landing weight, and cold, rather that pretty much right after take off. (Heavier a/c and much hotter) As long as the gear retracts normally, and no other sytems are an issue, then going to Bn isn't an issue.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Porch, unfortunately the Goodyear manual does not seem to be available on the internet without paying $13.95USD for the manual. I'll show you the link if you're offering to pay, but I'm not that interested, besides Boeing mandate the procedure to follow, for tire maintenance, and if it is any different from Bridgestone I'll be a Porch Monkeys Uncle.
Are you sure DJ only use Goodyear 'cause my mob use 3 or maybe 4 different brands.
ps. Large aircraft tyre retreading in Australia ceased last year. (according to Goodyears web site)
regards
Are you sure DJ only use Goodyear 'cause my mob use 3 or maybe 4 different brands.
ps. Large aircraft tyre retreading in Australia ceased last year. (according to Goodyears web site)
regards
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I guess we import them, because we still use them. (Retreads) Only ever seen Goodyears on our fleet. Of course, I don't get to do every walkaround either, usually only if it's pissing pain, or 35+ degrees in the shade..... And No, I'm not interested enough to pay for it, I continue to do what the good Boeing manuals say.
A blown tyre is no big deal and wouldn't be noticed on the flight deck of a 737. Who knows when the crew were notified that they had a blown tire?
Stopping performance is more likely to be diminished than go-performance
If the tyre was shredded and uncontained it wouldn't retract, it would hit one of those little doohickeys on the fairing and the gear would fall back down presenting the crew with red gear lights... but that's a different story to today's.
We could probably work out what rpm the nose wheels would be doing at rotation. Diameter say 50 cm. Ground speed about 140 kt. Circumference = pi x 0.5 m = 1.57 m.
Speed = 70 m/sec
Rotation Speed = 44 revs per sec
Rotation Speed = 2675 rpm!
And the only thing to stop that rotation is the snubbers inside the nose wheel bay.
I can just imagine shreds of loose rubber thrashing about at 2000 rpm near hydraulic lines, nose wheel steering cables and whatever else is in there. There's probably a pressure bulkhead not far beyond those wheel bay panels too.
If I thought a nose wheel tyre or any tyre had blown, I'd be leaving the gear down (unless off course I was having engine trouble at the same time), and hanging around for the weight to reduce below the MLW. And if the weather was such that a return to the departure field was not a good option, I'd be waiting a few minutes before retracting the gear to give them time to spin down.
By the way I find it very hard to believe that any pilot would take off, knowing a tyre had blown beforehand.
Last edited by Blip; 26th May 2009 at 14:25.