Air Malta emergency at GLA
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: essex
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck...
I appreciate the fuel burn thing, its just I wondered what the procedure was - literally circle above the field? or go to a designated hold? (eg LAM if it was for LHR etc ?)
I appreciate the fuel burn thing, its just I wondered what the procedure was - literally circle above the field? or go to a designated hold? (eg LAM if it was for LHR etc ?)
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smallpilot from an ATC point of view, if an A/c requires to hold off to burn fuel (or other reasons - checklists etc), the best place for it would be in a position where it won't get in the way of other arrivals/departures (Unfortunately, the LAM hold at LHR wouldn't be the most ideal place). Other considerations would be given the navigational equipment of the aircraft and surrounding nav-aids if they were required. And depending on the problem, I wouldn't want it too far from the field should the problem deteriorate into a situation where a quick return could be necessary.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It held at the GOW VOR (which is on the airfield) at FL80 which, when you think about it, is pretty much out of the way of inbounds and outbounds who would be lower in that vicinity. Therefore, in this instance, the press was more or less right when they said he was circling the airfield though it was more of an extended racetrack pattern than a circle 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lancs
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one has yet mentioned that KM suffered a similar tyre problem at MLA 1 month ago, also a 733. Had to circle the island for 3 hrs followed by an emergency landing. Thankfully everyone was ok.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How common are tread separation incident's compared to loss of the whole tyre? I know there are loads of reasons that can affect it, e.g poor inflation/pressure monitoring, no. of previous retreads (there are limits 4 or 5 I think), tyre damage, FOD on taxi/runway.
How often do they happen? Should the no. of retreads be reduced?
Just curious,
Eng
How often do they happen? Should the no. of retreads be reduced?
Just curious,
Eng
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brighton
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one has yet mentioned that KM suffered a similar tyre problem at MLA 1 month ago
http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=163961
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft tyres in storage at Air Malta withdrawn
No one has yet mentioned that KM suffered a similar tyre problem at MLA 1 month ago
Throwing away the sus batches of tyres may work but I've also found that continually preaching "Toe-brakes off and heels to floor" at the appropriate moment (initial take-off roll) also kept tyre-bursts on take-off to a minimum.
Like sidesticks, it's one of those things that are hard to monitor in an F/O, whether you're a Line Captain, Check Captain, Flight Instructor or Sim Instructor.
As a Flight Safety Officer I noted that the tyre-bursts never seemed to happen during touch and go evolutions, always on initial take-offs and frequently to the same individual.
I'd be having those tires checked out before throwing them on the dump. There may be nothing wrong with them.
So having said that, I wonder how many other tyre-bursts on take-off are related to leaving toes up on toe-brakes (heels NOT on the floor)?
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't be serious Shadow, what kind of airplanes did you ever fly? No experienced pilot would ever start his take off run with his feet firmly planted on the rudder pedals, activating the toe brakes unless it was a max power takeoff and you stood on the brakes till T/O power was established. Most other take offs are rolling ones and there is no way any pilot would keep his heels off the ground. I experienced about three burst tyre incidents during max weight T/O runs in very hot conditions in BKK and DUB which did a lot of ancilliary damage but I can assure you, nobody had their feet on the top of the pedals.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that the Flight Data Recorder would be able to tell if the brakes were applied or not. I am also pretty sure that Air Malta would have had a look at the FDR post incident, if just to verify the crew's info on what happened and when. I doubt they would be throwing away a load of tyres (which aint cheap) if the toe brakes had been applied causing the failure. Finaly, I think that if someone applied toe brakes to that extent (enough to cause a tyre failure) the decelleration would be highly evident. You would have read something about it in the pax reports and the flight crew would be well aware of what had caused it.
Eff Oh.
Eff Oh.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Necessarily So
HotDog said
Not sure what this statement has to do with a neophyte just failing to get his heels to the floor after brake release and later inadvertently applying brake with rudder. That involuntary toe action is an unfortunate result of over-extending the leg with a fullish rudder application (particularly if rudder pedal adjustment is not optimal and some stretch is involved).
and
Line up and hold before you make such a Sweeping statement.
Eff Oh said
I'm not so sure that the regulatory authority would be pulling DFDR's and analyzing them for evidence in the case of a tyre burst (or the operator voluntarily pulling an FDR to send along for the regulator's analysis. Pilots are blowing tyres with monotonous regularity and it's normally taken to be just another serviceability glitch. The assumption is normally (for take-off incidents) that they are worn, faulty or flat-spotted....or that the flight-crew might have miscued. Doubt that such info goes on the QAR for FOQA/FDM analysis. Even if pilots are aware of what actually happened, it's frequently relegated to something that's then kept between themselves. With a lot of low-time right-seaters around without nosewheel steering, it's always a distinct possibility. They just don't realise the possibilities, nor that they're doing it. It's also easy to miss from the IP's seat.
and
You might be surprised at the assumptions that are made after a rash of such apparent tech-failure incidents. The tyre throw-away PR release may just be a way of reassuring the travelling public that it was indeed materiel failure (whether or not they're aware that it may not have been). Air Malta has had so many fiascos already this year they are likely to be hyper-PR sensitive. It's a little island....and with a restricted clientele.
and
Unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong here. At speed when the aircraft is accelerating and the aircraft is light on its main-gear (and perhaps with the nosewheel airborne) an inadvertent partial toe-brake application, made because of leg/ankle geometry, doesn't produce identifiable deceleration, any significant swerve nor any evolution that the pax would notice. What it can do is stop a lightly-loaded wheel and mow much tread off the tyre very quickly because of that. I was very much aware of it during 4eng conversion flights and I'd always take the student later for a close examination of what he'd done to a good set of tyres. It's easily done and you frequently come quite close to running right through your rubber.
TS
No experienced pilot would ever start his take off run with his feet firmly planted on the rudder pedals, activating the toe brakes unless it was a max power takeoff and you stood on the brakes till T/O power was established.
and
Most other take offs are rolling ones and there is no way any pilot would keep his heels off the ground.
Eff Oh said
I am sure that the Flight Data Recorder would be able to tell if the brakes were applied or not. I am also pretty sure that Air Malta would have had a look at the FDR post incident, if just to verify the crew's info on what happened and when.
and
I doubt they would be throwing away a load of tyres (which ain't cheap) if the toe brakes had been applied causing the failure.
and
Finally, I think that if someone applied toe brakes to that extent (enough to cause a tyre failure) the deceleration would be highly evident. You would have read something about it in the pax reports and the flight crew would be well aware of what had caused it.
TS
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before the arm-chair experts continue imagining these fanciful theories, you might takes some time and look at,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_030888.hcsp
and,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_030889.hcsp
... to see some likely events leading to tyre failure, rather than conjure and speculate on unfounded theories blaming the pilots.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_030888.hcsp
and,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_030889.hcsp
... to see some likely events leading to tyre failure, rather than conjure and speculate on unfounded theories blaming the pilots.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a right turn on to the active ruway and it was the right tyre that lost its tread...
I can definetly say that the tyre that blew was NOT the r/h but the L/H INBD, this I have no doubt over whatsoever.
Eng
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shadow, how many burst tyre or thread separation incidents have you actually, personally experienced whilst operating an aircraft? We lost a Convair 880 into Hong Kong harbour when a nosewheel thread seperated during the takoff run. We stopped using re-threads on nosewheels after that. If you want to see some damaged tyres without brake assistance, have a look at the following:
None of the above tre failures were caused by inadvertent brake application.
None of the above tre failures were caused by inadvertent brake application.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other reasons for tyre failure
320driver
Accept your examples of the two EMB145's (G-EMBD and G-EMBL).
(....and so couldn't agree more that running tyres under-inflated and leaking fuse-plugs and possibly a host of other causes might also cause tyre failure. I'm not even saying that these are exceptions to any sort of rule. Just suggesting that there can be other non-technical reasons for tyre failure and that they can remain undetected as causes - not looking for a bun-fight. What I have experienced and seen was over a lengthy period of introducing junior woodchucks to 4 engine airplanes. It was a common foot-fault error, particularly during asymmetrics.
Hotdog
Your imagery links are corrupted.
"Thread" separation is what we are now experiencing - but to address your question, mostly severe tyre flatspots..... but I have observed some blown tyres particularly during t/off asymmetrics and wet runway operations. When you get two tyres blowing simultaneously on the same side, take-off or landing, it's normally a Captain Leadfoot doing his thing. In my experience it's quite unlikely that an adjacent tyre will be taken out by a tyre blowing.
Nobody is suggesting that retreads shouldn't be used. The technique is quite capable of producing quite serviceable tyres.
Accept your examples of the two EMB145's (G-EMBD and G-EMBL).
(....and so couldn't agree more that running tyres under-inflated and leaking fuse-plugs and possibly a host of other causes might also cause tyre failure. I'm not even saying that these are exceptions to any sort of rule. Just suggesting that there can be other non-technical reasons for tyre failure and that they can remain undetected as causes - not looking for a bun-fight. What I have experienced and seen was over a lengthy period of introducing junior woodchucks to 4 engine airplanes. It was a common foot-fault error, particularly during asymmetrics.
Hotdog
Your imagery links are corrupted.
"Thread" separation is what we are now experiencing - but to address your question, mostly severe tyre flatspots..... but I have observed some blown tyres particularly during t/off asymmetrics and wet runway operations. When you get two tyres blowing simultaneously on the same side, take-off or landing, it's normally a Captain Leadfoot doing his thing. In my experience it's quite unlikely that an adjacent tyre will be taken out by a tyre blowing.
Nobody is suggesting that retreads shouldn't be used. The technique is quite capable of producing quite serviceable tyres.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Shadow, we are not just talking about a tyre burst here. The damage from the first incident caused a hydraulic leak to the extent that the runway was closed for a period in order to clear the fluid from the runway. In this case I am sure the FDR WOULD be looked at, not only by the operator, but by the AAIB. As for "pilots bursting tyres with monotonous regularty" well I never have and I don't know of anyone who has either. I am not suggesting of course that it does not happen, but not to the extent you imply. If you are experiencing this a lot in your company then perhaps you have a training issue??
Latest news...
Air Malta incident back in Scottish media
By MaltaMedia News
Feb 11, 2005, 11:30 CET
Investigations on Air Malta incident last September show that the burst tyre, which caused the accident, was nearly fully worn, scotmans newspaper reports. According to the report, debris from the tyre damaged the Boeing 737’s hydraulic system, which lead to a loss of fluid and several flaps.
The incident had sparked a major Glasgow airport alert as the Air Malta jet, with 137 passengers and 5 crewmembers on board had to circle the airport for nearly three hours to burn off fuel before landing safely.
The Scottish media reported that the Department for Transport’s air accident investigation branch report stated, "the most concerning aspect of the tread failure was the piece of debris which had become lodged near to the control cables for the spoilers and ailerons [hinged flaps] on the left wing. This had the potential to result in a control restriction during a critical phase of flight."
The report also showed that the tyre had probably reached its ultimate fatigue limit at an earlier age than predicted by the sample testing of other tyres. However, the investigators made no recommendations in the report because the airline has made several safety improvements to prevent a recurrence.
These included limiting aircraft tyres to three retreads, improving tyre checks and briefing flight crews.
http://www.maltamedia.com/news/2005/...cle_5089.shtml
Air Malta incident back in Scottish media
By MaltaMedia News
Feb 11, 2005, 11:30 CET
Investigations on Air Malta incident last September show that the burst tyre, which caused the accident, was nearly fully worn, scotmans newspaper reports. According to the report, debris from the tyre damaged the Boeing 737’s hydraulic system, which lead to a loss of fluid and several flaps.
The incident had sparked a major Glasgow airport alert as the Air Malta jet, with 137 passengers and 5 crewmembers on board had to circle the airport for nearly three hours to burn off fuel before landing safely.
The Scottish media reported that the Department for Transport’s air accident investigation branch report stated, "the most concerning aspect of the tread failure was the piece of debris which had become lodged near to the control cables for the spoilers and ailerons [hinged flaps] on the left wing. This had the potential to result in a control restriction during a critical phase of flight."
The report also showed that the tyre had probably reached its ultimate fatigue limit at an earlier age than predicted by the sample testing of other tyres. However, the investigators made no recommendations in the report because the airline has made several safety improvements to prevent a recurrence.
These included limiting aircraft tyres to three retreads, improving tyre checks and briefing flight crews.
http://www.maltamedia.com/news/2005/...cle_5089.shtml