Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

LATAM B773 complete electrical failure?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

LATAM B773 complete electrical failure?

Old 10th Aug 2021, 20:03
  #101 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,837
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
That was a truly nasty set of failures. Top marks to the pilots for what looks like excellent CRM leading to a successful outcome.
FullWings is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2021, 00:12
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 44
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I found really unexpected, that report says

During landing, the brake set overheated, which started the fire on the wheels of the
main right and left landing gears. The Fire Section carried out the fire fighting, which was controlled in 4 minutes. From the beginning of the fire extinguishing to cooling the set of brakes, 65,700 liters of water and 780 liters of Foam Generating Liquid (LGE) have been spent.
that's 65 tons of water to control the wheel fire. Seems quite a bit more than I would expect.
AlexGG is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2021, 04:44
  #103 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Water usage

I think thats fully ok. The wheels are big and many, and the brakes: same. Plus, they carry all the heat from braking the overweight airplane in them. Amazing, that they could take it, anyway.
So, a quantity of water is needed to cool things down. Quite ok with me.
Klauss is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2021, 14:24
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,085
Received 29 Likes on 23 Posts
And some of the water must have been mixed with the 780 L of foam concentrate. That wouldn't do much to cool the wheels themselves.
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2021, 04:45
  #105 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,226
Received 13 Likes on 8 Posts
65 tonnes = 65 cubic meters. Or a swimming pool about 5.5m x 6m x 1.96m deep (water is pretty massive). Doesn't seem like a lot to me, given the mass of the main gear trucks (~6.8 tonnes each).

Plus it occured in local tropical summertime. Daily high temperatures of 28C - the water may have been 25-35C after sitting in the sun all day, and thus less efficient in absorbing and removing heat from the metal/rubber/carbon of the gear.

One would have to juggle starting temps, specific heats, joules, volumes/masses and such to get an estimate of water required to achieve cooling of xxC. And then factor in inefficiency of delivery (water that just sprays on the runway).
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2021, 09:23
  #106 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
That's likely the total contents of the fire tenders, which would just blast until all used up.
WHBM is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2021, 15:22
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,085
Received 29 Likes on 23 Posts
By my math, it would take something like 300 tonnes of steel at 1100 degrees Celsius to flash 65 tonnes of 100 degree water to 100 degree steam. So it seems safe to say the runway got pretty wet.
Chu Chu is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.