QF aborted take off LAX - update

[DaHai]

The following appears to be the latest info on the aborted take off in LAX (May 2008)

http://news.smh.com.au/national/manu...0616-2ra0.html

What is the conflicting information?

[Capt Fathom]

The 'news' story has been completely botched up by the reporter.

They're talking about two completely different incidents as if it was one.

A tyre failure/subsequent loss of one hydraulic system, where the aircraft continued to Brisbane.

And the other was an aborted Takeoff in LA.

Journalists!!

[RWA]

Originally Posted by Capn Fathom

They're talking about two completely different incidents as if it was one.

With respect, I don't think so. Definitely talking about the first one, in March. The key parts of the story appear to be:-

"The Sydney-bound plane, with 232 passengers and crew aboard, was moments from lifting off in late March when the pilot noticed a warning light in the cockpit." - and:-

"The conflicting information between the FCOM and the FCTM regarding hydraulic system pressure loss created the potential for confusion by flight crew," the bureau said." - and:-

"The operator suggested to the manufacturer that, if it was not policy to land at the nearest suitable airport in the case of a single hydraulic system failure, the FCTM text be either clarified or deleted," the bureau's report said."

My guess is that the blown tyres were the result of the RTO, not the cause. And (guessing again) that one manual says you should RTO or divert if one hydraulic system quits, and the other says that you don't need to.

[Oceanz]

RWA,

The ATSB report that the news item mentions is for the hydraulic failure & continuation to Brisbane only. The tone of the news story seems to imply that the RTO was in the report.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...007051_001.pdf

[Matt35]

Could the burst tyre have been caused by the 192 extra passengers who materialised between the first and second reports?

Matt.