Air Canada 767 Problems at Madrid

[InSoMnIaC]

holding for 4 hours on 1 engine due to overweight landing/tyre damage. I havent done the landing perf assessment but I doubt it would have been a major problem to bring it right back

[Dropp the Pilot]

If you have departed from a runway you can safely land on that runway with one engine, or safely go-around after a single-engine approach to that runway. This assessment can be done in one half of a second. It is unclear what proportion of the four hours was occupied by this assessment.

[George Glass]

Don’t know about the B767 but on the B737 if the engine runs surge and stall free at reduced thrust and engine indications are stable there is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airport. Suspect they did a good job.

[Say Mach Number]

Bringing it straight back may be ok In terms of performance and distance etc but tyre speed limits may be a factor at very high weights and certain ambient conditions and light winds.

Can’t speak for 767 but on 738 it’s 200mph and that can be achieved on touchdown at certain high weights and the right ambient conditions.

Losing more tyres on landing due to exceeding tyre speed limits may have been a consideration.

ps especially if planning less than normal flap settings for landing after tyre damage to engine or flaps etc

[Auxtank]

Originally Posted by Dave Therhino

I wrote the material below in a thread some time back to explain the regulation that contains the requirements that determine whether a jettison system must be installed.

Thanks Dave and to all above who posted such informative responses to my query.

[SaulGoodman]

on avherald it is stated that they had one MLG tyre blown and they shut down the #1 engine. The info of the one tyre came apparently from the f18.

I am purely wondering, not judging, why did they continue for so long on one engine?
This is a sticky situation. Continue with only one engine or land at high Gross Weight with (at least) one tyre damaged. I think given the info I probably would have landed “at the nearest suitable airport”. In any case, they landed safely so kudos to the crew.

[Landflap]

This moves into the "multi fail" scenario. One engine out, land. Yes , Drop the pilot . We would all love to live in your easy world . But these guys faced potential of gear problem too . Burn fuel to lowest LW. Now, two scenarios tied together and you see why we are paid all this money eh ? Very good co-ordinated decisions led to safe outcome. Are we asked for anything more ?Tough job well done indeed.

[twochai]

Originally Posted by Landflap

This moves into the "multi fail" scenario. One engine out, land. Yes , Drop the pilot . We would all love to live in your easy world . But these guys faced potential of gear problem too . Burn fuel to lowest LW. Now, two scenarios tied together and you see why we are paid all this money eh ? Very good co-ordinated decisions led to safe outcome. Are we asked for anything more ?Tough job well done indeed.

AMEN! Would that all should have such a successful outcome.

[A320LGW]

Originally Posted by Mr Mac

Well done AC but I would bet that was a long 4hrs for SLF and crew up there.
kind regards

Mr Mac

As long as a sim session

[Ancient Mariner]

Was on a SK B767 having one engine go bang climbing out of PEK heading for CPH. They turned around and landed ASAP, no damage anywhere else though.
Per

[widgeon]

Originally Posted by admiral ackbar

From Flyertalk

as a matter of interest what are the green thingies next to the wheels

[Beamr]

Originally Posted by widgeon

as a matter of interest what are the green thingies next to the wheels

brake cooling fans

[InSoMnIaC]

Originally Posted by Dropp the Pilot

If you have departed from a runway you can safely land on that runway with one engine, or safely go-around after a single-engine approach to that runway. This assessment can be done in one half of a second. It is unclear what proportion of the four hours was occupied by this assessment.

An overly simplistic approach to a complicated scenario.

[discorules]

I will be interested to understand the sequence of events which led to the failures observed.
As the MLG is quite far aft of the intake for the engines, although plausible, is it likely that a burst tyre, especially one on the rear axle, would eject debris far enough forward to be ingested?
I know that the engine intake danger areas extend around and aft of the intake itself, especially at high-power settings, and that forward speed of the a/c at the time of the tyre failure could influence this scenario, however, is it possible that the engine damage was caused by other debris, which in turn led to the ejection of shrapnel into the tyre causing it's subsequent failure?

[jantar99]

Originally Posted by discorules

As the MLG is quite far aft of the intake for the engines, although plausible, is it likely that a burst tyre, especially one on the rear axle, would eject debris far enough forward to be ingested?

The upper part of the tire moves at twice the speed of the AC, so yes, the debris can fly forward enough.

[BRE]

Originally Posted by jantar99

The upper part of the tire moves at twice the speed of the AC, so yes, the debris can fly forward enough.

You have chosen a strange reference point for that statement. Let's just say the upper surface moves away from the aircraft at the aircraft's speed.

[Twitter]

Originally Posted by BRE

You have chosen a strange reference point for that statement. Let's just say the upper surface moves away from the aircraft at the aircraft's speed.

Having had this happen at Vrot, I can assure you that the tyre doesn’t give a monkey’s about the reference point. It goes Bang and bits fly in all directions.

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by BRE

You have chosen a strange reference point for that statement. Let's just say the upper surface moves away from the aircraft at the aircraft's speed.

And in the same direction (otherwise it could be just lying on the ground).

[Beamr]

Originally Posted by jantar99

The upper part of the tire moves at twice the speed of the AC, so yes, the debris can fly forward enough.

I'm terribly sorry but I don't follow;
if ground speed is 100knots, the tyre outer skin is rolling at exactly 100 knots against the tarmac.
if it would go faster or slower, you would be burning rubber.
If the tyre it self would be going faster than the AC, you'd have a bit of a rush to catch it.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by Beamr

I'm terribly sorry but I don't follow;
if ground speed is 100knots, the tyre outer skin is rolling at exactly 100 knots against the tarmac.
if it would go faster or slower, you would be burning rubber.
If the tyre it self would be going faster than the AC, you'd have a bit of a rush to catch it.

And the entire tread is rotating at 100 knots around the centre. So, the very top is moving forwards at 100 knots