Air Canada jet aborted takeoff in Las Vegas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Canada jet aborted takeoff in Las Vegas
March 13, 2007
Damaged Air Canada jet aborted takeoff at 126 mph in Las Vegas
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer
LAS VEGAS (AP) - An Air Canada jet with 146 people aboard was barreling down a runway at 126 mph when it blew landing gear tires and aborted its takeoff from Las Vegas, a Federal Aviation Administration official said Tuesday.
No injuries were reported after Air Canada flight 547 came safely to a stop Monday about halfway down a 14,510-foot runway at McCarran International Airport, the nation's fifth-busiest.
All 140 passengers and six crew were ushered down portable stairs and bused back to the terminal. They were put up overnight at a hotel and flown Tuesday to their original destination in Calgary, Alberta, aboard another plane, airport and airline officials said.
The disabled Airbus 320, which did not became airborne, remained on the runway at McCarran for more than 17 hours with engines damaged by debris from shredded tires, said Ian Gregor FAA spokesman for the regional office in Hawthorne, Calif.
"Both engines are damaged and the left main gear is badly damaged," Gregor said. He said pilots reported brake problems on the aircraft before the mishap.
"If this was a U.S. carrier, we would take a very close look at the design features of this aircraft to see if they contributed to what went wrong," he said.
It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board would investigate or whether Transport Canada, the Canadian federal transportation department, would take part.
International protocol calls for the NTSB to be the lead investigative agency of an accident on U.S. soil and a representative from the Canadian agency to observe, said Paul Schlamm, an NTSB spokesman in Washington, and Nicole McNeely, a spokeswoman for Transport Canada in Ottawa.
However, Gregor noted that the mishap was classified as an "incident" instead of an accident because no one was hurt.
He said the pilots reported "hot brakes" and pulled the aircraft out of a departure queue before rejoining the takeoff line and starting down the runway about 6 p.m. - more than 30 minutes after a scheduled 5:25 p.m. departure.
As the plane reached 110 knots, tires on the left main landing gear "disintegrated," Gregor said, the brakes on the landing gear ground a groove in the runway, and the tire on the nose landing gear blew.
Air Canada was investigating the mishap and was following protocols with government agencies and the aircraft's manufacturers, said John Reber, spokesman for the airline in Montreal. Reber said he could not provide details until the probe was complete.
"The important thing here is there were no injuries," the airline spokesman said. "After deplaning the passengers, our priority was to minimize the inconvenience to them."
Gregor and McCarran officials said air controllers diverted traffic away from the blocked runway and no other flights were delayed until the damaged aircraft was moved about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday.
Airport spokeswoman Candice Seeley said "minor ruts" in the runway were repaired before it was reopened.
--
Problems or questions?
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
Damaged Air Canada jet aborted takeoff at 126 mph in Las Vegas
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer
LAS VEGAS (AP) - An Air Canada jet with 146 people aboard was barreling down a runway at 126 mph when it blew landing gear tires and aborted its takeoff from Las Vegas, a Federal Aviation Administration official said Tuesday.
No injuries were reported after Air Canada flight 547 came safely to a stop Monday about halfway down a 14,510-foot runway at McCarran International Airport, the nation's fifth-busiest.
All 140 passengers and six crew were ushered down portable stairs and bused back to the terminal. They were put up overnight at a hotel and flown Tuesday to their original destination in Calgary, Alberta, aboard another plane, airport and airline officials said.
The disabled Airbus 320, which did not became airborne, remained on the runway at McCarran for more than 17 hours with engines damaged by debris from shredded tires, said Ian Gregor FAA spokesman for the regional office in Hawthorne, Calif.
"Both engines are damaged and the left main gear is badly damaged," Gregor said. He said pilots reported brake problems on the aircraft before the mishap.
"If this was a U.S. carrier, we would take a very close look at the design features of this aircraft to see if they contributed to what went wrong," he said.
It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board would investigate or whether Transport Canada, the Canadian federal transportation department, would take part.
International protocol calls for the NTSB to be the lead investigative agency of an accident on U.S. soil and a representative from the Canadian agency to observe, said Paul Schlamm, an NTSB spokesman in Washington, and Nicole McNeely, a spokeswoman for Transport Canada in Ottawa.
However, Gregor noted that the mishap was classified as an "incident" instead of an accident because no one was hurt.
He said the pilots reported "hot brakes" and pulled the aircraft out of a departure queue before rejoining the takeoff line and starting down the runway about 6 p.m. - more than 30 minutes after a scheduled 5:25 p.m. departure.
As the plane reached 110 knots, tires on the left main landing gear "disintegrated," Gregor said, the brakes on the landing gear ground a groove in the runway, and the tire on the nose landing gear blew.
Air Canada was investigating the mishap and was following protocols with government agencies and the aircraft's manufacturers, said John Reber, spokesman for the airline in Montreal. Reber said he could not provide details until the probe was complete.
"The important thing here is there were no injuries," the airline spokesman said. "After deplaning the passengers, our priority was to minimize the inconvenience to them."
Gregor and McCarran officials said air controllers diverted traffic away from the blocked runway and no other flights were delayed until the damaged aircraft was moved about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday.
Airport spokeswoman Candice Seeley said "minor ruts" in the runway were repaired before it was reopened.
--
Problems or questions?
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigates accidents.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/index.asp
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/index.asp
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If this was a U.S. carrier, we would take a very close look at the design features of this aircraft to see if they contributed to what went wrong," he said."
Wonder if he would have said the same if it was a 737?
Wonder if he would have said the same if it was a 737?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 30 West
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the looks of what they said , nose gear tyres blew out cause the left main disintergrated ??? anyways a post 100 kt reject will almost always result in such a senario . . . . weight depending , quedeos to the crew for doing the drill and no on getting hurt
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfranz,
Why will a post 100kt reject result in burst nose tyres? A MLW landing touching down at 140kts has 35% more energy than a MTOW abort at 100kts. At very high weights and speeds there is a brake/tyre energy problem but at '126mph' it really shouldn't be an issue.
Why will a post 100kt reject result in burst nose tyres? A MLW landing touching down at 140kts has 35% more energy than a MTOW abort at 100kts. At very high weights and speeds there is a brake/tyre energy problem but at '126mph' it really shouldn't be an issue.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something's not adding up
Something seems incomplete here.
First, if MTOW=MLW, my high school physics suggests that a 140 kt landing requires the dissipation of 96% more kinetic energy than a 100 kt RTO [KE=(mv^2)/2)]. While I do not know the difference between this A320's actual TOW and its MLW, the fact that the flight was just to Calgary suggests that it was not carrying a full fuel load. Thus, the fact that this RTO caused so much damage should be of great concern.
That said, an RTO likely requires a far faster deceleration rate than a normal landing because of less runway remaining. But if the AC flight really was on McCarran's 14,500 ft runway, it seems likely that the required deceleration rate should not have been too extreme.
I assume a more complete description of the surrounding of this incident will eventually become available and these incongruities will be resolved.
First, if MTOW=MLW, my high school physics suggests that a 140 kt landing requires the dissipation of 96% more kinetic energy than a 100 kt RTO [KE=(mv^2)/2)]. While I do not know the difference between this A320's actual TOW and its MLW, the fact that the flight was just to Calgary suggests that it was not carrying a full fuel load. Thus, the fact that this RTO caused so much damage should be of great concern.
That said, an RTO likely requires a far faster deceleration rate than a normal landing because of less runway remaining. But if the AC flight really was on McCarran's 14,500 ft runway, it seems likely that the required deceleration rate should not have been too extreme.
I assume a more complete description of the surrounding of this incident will eventually become available and these incongruities will be resolved.
Last edited by SeenItAll; 16th Mar 2007 at 14:58.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accelerate to 100+ kts, reject takeoff, and full stop, all in about 7000 feet ("plane stopped about half way down the runway). Not bad for what they were dealing with. Good job.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armada
tyres blow, debris get's thrown forward and rearwards, lot of potential energy when spinning at 100kts, forward debris bounces around on runway in front of a/c, engines possibly now on full reverse collect the debris, double engine change....
Hope this helps,
N1 Vibes
tyres blow, debris get's thrown forward and rearwards, lot of potential energy when spinning at 100kts, forward debris bounces around on runway in front of a/c, engines possibly now on full reverse collect the debris, double engine change....
Hope this helps,
N1 Vibes
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This explains it. A bit of runway rash on the nacells too. 
2007/03/16
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: The Air Canada Airbus A320-200, C-FMSX, was operating as flight ACA 547 from Las Vegas, NV (KLAS) to Calgary, AB. During the take off roll on Runway 25R, at about 100 knots, the flight crew heard two pops and experienced a pull to the left. The take-off was rejected and the aircraft was brought to a full stop on the runway. Both left main landing gear tires had failed resulting in the aircraft sliding on the rims, which were ground down to the axle by the time the aircraft stopped. The right main tires and right-hand nose gear tire deflated during the RTO. ARFF was requested and the passengers were deplaned via air stairs through the front left main cabin door. There were no injuries or fire. There was skin damage on the left engine nacelle, flap canoes, and lower wing skins from the failed tires and rims. There was also FOD damage to the left engine main fan blades, but the engine core was fine.
2007/03/16
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: The Air Canada Airbus A320-200, C-FMSX, was operating as flight ACA 547 from Las Vegas, NV (KLAS) to Calgary, AB. During the take off roll on Runway 25R, at about 100 knots, the flight crew heard two pops and experienced a pull to the left. The take-off was rejected and the aircraft was brought to a full stop on the runway. Both left main landing gear tires had failed resulting in the aircraft sliding on the rims, which were ground down to the axle by the time the aircraft stopped. The right main tires and right-hand nose gear tire deflated during the RTO. ARFF was requested and the passengers were deplaned via air stairs through the front left main cabin door. There were no injuries or fire. There was skin damage on the left engine nacelle, flap canoes, and lower wing skins from the failed tires and rims. There was also FOD damage to the left engine main fan blades, but the engine core was fine.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there was probably more energy dissipated on this reject than in a heavy weight landing. This reject was done at a speed higher than 80 kts, which is normaly used as a "soft V1", where an abort is only started for mor serious mishaps. This suggests that it was a maximum effort stop.
I've never flown an airbus, but on the 744 the RTO setting of the AB would have kicked in, which would have applied almost maximum braking. Being that you never use such a strong brake setting on landing (normal conditions), I would say that this aircraft was dealing with much more stress on the brakes than a normal landing.
Now, the article reports that the crew talked about delaying take-off due to hot brakes. That would mean that they probably had some indication on the cockpit and that they had to wait until the brakes cooled to get the brakes below a certain value in order to be able to take-off. The real question is if they actually waited for that temp to be within limits, or if they decided to take-off even though it was "close enough" to the required limit. If they did decide to go with it over the limit, the higher altitude and possibly higher temp or even low rated tires could have been enough to melt the plugs or just plain blow the tires apart.
Just speculating. All this information should be easily extracted from the black boxes. Will follow this closely to see the results.
I've never flown an airbus, but on the 744 the RTO setting of the AB would have kicked in, which would have applied almost maximum braking. Being that you never use such a strong brake setting on landing (normal conditions), I would say that this aircraft was dealing with much more stress on the brakes than a normal landing.
Now, the article reports that the crew talked about delaying take-off due to hot brakes. That would mean that they probably had some indication on the cockpit and that they had to wait until the brakes cooled to get the brakes below a certain value in order to be able to take-off. The real question is if they actually waited for that temp to be within limits, or if they decided to take-off even though it was "close enough" to the required limit. If they did decide to go with it over the limit, the higher altitude and possibly higher temp or even low rated tires could have been enough to melt the plugs or just plain blow the tires apart.
Just speculating. All this information should be easily extracted from the black boxes. Will follow this closely to see the results.
Originally Posted by Ghostflyer
Why will a post 100kt reject result in burst nose tyres?
Flat tires (tyres) on one side of the aircraft creates an unequal amount of rolling friction between left and right. If no braking is applied, the aircraft will "pull" towards the flat tires. If manual braking is used, the brake pedal pressure to the appropriate side may be modulated to help maintain directional control. If auto braking is selected to RTO, (as is normal for takeoff in aircraft so equipped) initiation of an RTO will result in automatic braking. Auto braking should apply equal pressure to both sides. The flat side will begin to skid, causing the anti-skid system to release brake pressure from that side. Even if the failed side locks up, more of the wheel braking effect is now likely being provided by the "good" side, causing the aircraft to "pull" to that side. A normal pilot reaction would be to use steering input to counter the effect, possibly causing unusually high side loads on the nose tires. Not really too surprising that one or both might fail in these circumstances.
The really good news of course, is that in the actual instance being discussed in this thread, they were able to keep it on the runway surface and get it stopped safely without anything worse happening. A happy result indeed.
I agree completely with the explanation of how engines may be damaged by FOD ingestion during such an event. It has happened many times.
I would certainly not be looking at this as though some kind of "design flaw" was at play here. Hot brakes and tires have been a factor in similar failures many times. The airplane appears to have performed as designed in that a successful RTO was indeed accomplished. In time, analysis of the FDR data will likely reveal much about the sequence of events. Expect to wait awhile for those results to be published though.
Best regards,
Westhawk
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds to me like they had a stuck wheel brake from the get-go. They reported hot brakes and got out of line while taxiing out. Then got back in line and attempted takeoff. The Airbus aircraft have brake temp indicators and some have wheel brake fans to cool them off.
I've never personally heard of having hot brakes while taxiing OUT for takeoff but have heard it taxiing in after landing and having used the brakes for that landing.
Capt737AA
I've never personally heard of having hot brakes while taxiing OUT for takeoff but have heard it taxiing in after landing and having used the brakes for that landing.
Capt737AA
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt737AA, have a look at
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=265526
Parts of the discussion cover hot brakes on departure.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=265526
Parts of the discussion cover hot brakes on departure.