EMIRATES A380 BNE
Only half a speed-brake
Does his explanation make sense? Did A340s of that vintage have fuel dumping capacity and would the presence of an urban area make any difference to whether fuel was dumped in this scenario, or was it more a case of wanting to be on the ground in a big hurry and being too busy to bother?
Over an urban area or not, with a fire indication on board, landing and safely stopping in any manner that gets you on the ground the fastest is the sole objective.
Imagine rejected take-off at CDG which would cook the brakes as designed. An expedited severely overweight landing due smoke emergency 1 hour later might still take the temperatures above operational limits despite the triple available stopping distance and much lover E(kin), but they are meant to be abused when in need.
Edit: Correct. It's not a failed engine or even decompression that warrants the steepest dive, fire or smoke are.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 5th Jul 2022 at 09:04.
One of the reasons this SLF is here is to help overcome the after-effects of experiencing an emergency landing in July 2000 at Lyon St Exupéry by an AF A340 flying Charles de Gaulle-Johannesburg .. Did A340s of that vintage have fuel dumping capacity and would the presence of an urban area make any difference to whether fuel was dumped in this scenario, or was it more a case of wanting to be on the ground in a big hurry and being too busy to bother?
In the event of thinking a smoke/Fire warning is credible and most especially if you consider it may be uncontrollable you need to get the airframe on the ground as soon as possible...(checklist usually says that somewhere, often first item after diagnosis complete).
it's not a case of "to busy to bother" with fuel dumping as much it's low down the list of priorities and given typical dump rates you are not going to reduce weight significantly in the time available if you are aiming for an expeditious landing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 76
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF the tire didn't let go on or just after leaving the ground, the next opportunity for its highest stress would be, when the aircraft does reach altitude, when the pressure difference between inside and outside gets to the max, combined with the low temperature to give the lowest plasticity / the highest brittleness of the rubber and carcass.
The picture also seems to show more sidewall damage, though, of course, you can't see from the picture, whether that's collateral damage from the landing or additional damage, originally there, just like the pre-blowout damage.
Could it be, this signals more towards damage caused during storage/mounting of the tire and less towards an operational damaging ?
The picture also seems to show more sidewall damage, though, of course, you can't see from the picture, whether that's collateral damage from the landing or additional damage, originally there, just like the pre-blowout damage.
Could it be, this signals more towards damage caused during storage/mounting of the tire and less towards an operational damaging ?
Delta had a tire blow in Madrid on a 767 that punched a hole right through the wing. Took out two of the 3 hydraulics systems, nosewheel steering, normal and alternate brakes, limited flaps/slats and one reverser inop. It was caused by a rather large chunk of metal that somehow was cast into the tire at the time of manufacture. The statement the crew handled it well was a understatement. The landing was without most wheel brakes, on accumulator only, one reverser, limited flaps and overweight. They kept it on the paved surface until the speed dropped below 20 knots.
https://avherald.com/h?article=46c87473
https://avherald.com/h?article=46c87473
Last edited by Sailvi767; 5th Jul 2022 at 12:24.
I'm inclined to say well done to the manufacturers.... a hole presents itself to a non pressurised part of the airframe and it's a non event.
A little surprised no pax feedback about sound of a tyre blowin out. I had one blow on an A300 years back and we heard it very clearly in the front!!
A little surprised no pax feedback about sound of a tyre blowin out. I had one blow on an A300 years back and we heard it very clearly in the front!!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers did report a "loud bang 30-45 minutes after takeoff " according to press reports. We can assume one or more members of the cabin crew must have heard something as well. Just to study the decision making process, it will be interesting to learn what the cabin crew and cockpit crew hear, and what did cabin crew report to the front office of the plane.
IF it was to have been caused by the 'missing bolt' from the NLG, I'd have expected to see damage to the tread surface rather than the sidewall, and for the tyre to let go prior to retraction, in a similar vein to Concorde. I dunno, maybe there's some interrelation I'm not seeing...
Has anyone confirmed the claim from the AvHerald comments section that the "missing bolt photo" was indeed from 2017 and is unrelated to the tyre blowout?
Has anyone confirmed the claim from the AvHerald comments section that the "missing bolt photo" was indeed from 2017 and is unrelated to the tyre blowout?
How about 360 degree cameras in the wingtip fences instead? Might be helpful for taxi and pushback and could have some inward looks if needed. IFE use as a bonus.
Vibration sensors and 360 deg cameras! Clutching at straws now!
The aircraft was flying quite normally with the only issue being a deflated tyre. There is a procedure that deals with that which the crew followed on arrival in Brisbane.
The aircraft was flying quite normally with the only issue being a deflated tyre. There is a procedure that deals with that which the crew followed on arrival in Brisbane.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere colder than my clothes.
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
Would You Continue Knowing the Damage?
SLF question if you guys don't mind. There's some discussion over how much the crew did/should have known before deciding to continue. I'm not offering an opinion, but given that the damage was non-structural and didn't affect any aircraft system, and that the crew would be aware of the blown tyre I can understand the desire to continue. If, as some have suggested, there was a camera or some such which displayed the damage to the crew, how many of you would have continued? Hindsight shows that the flight operated normally so a decision to dump fuel etc and return would have been unnecessary in this particular case, but who'd want to fly with what appears to be a gaping hole in the aetoplane?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers did report a "loud bang 30-45 minutes after takeoff " according to press reports. We can assume one or more members of the cabin crew must have heard something as well. Just to study the decision making process, it will be interesting to learn what the cabin crew and cockpit crew hear, and what did cabin crew report to the front office of the plane.
