Kiwi B777 burst 12 tyres in aborted takeoff at NRT
 

News flash :


Air New Zealand is investigating what went wrong with one of its Boeing-777s after 12 tyres burst after a packed flight at Japan's busy Narita airport on Sunday night was forced to abort, sparking a full-scale emergency response.
Flight NZ90 was forced to urgently abort its take-off when the pilots discovered a potential problem with the auto thrust control, the Dominion Post reported.
Twelve tyres on the aircraft burst and fire appliances were needed to cool its braking system, resulting in the runway being shut down for 30 minutes.
Civil Aviation spokesman Bill Sommer said Air NZ had informed the authority of the incident.
An airline spokeswoman confirmed an investigation was under way.
Potential problem with autothrust? Is this one you would reject at high speed?

Autothrust / Throttle Hold?? I wasn't there so I don't know.

12 tires burst? more likely the "melt plugs" did their job and deflated them, a tire burst at 220 PSI {cold }is not an event you want to be close to.

We have one known fact thus far and that is that the takeoff was rejected. The reports of "outcomes" antecedent to the reason for the reject such as "12 burst tires" are not important - they are designed to do that to prevent explosions from pressure build-up due to heat so that is not news. (Nor is a burst tire in and of itself normally a reason to reject a takeoff).

The statement above regarding autothrust is not an established fact. It reads like a media statement. Otherwise your question about rejecting the takeoff would be easy to answer - the answer would be "no, one would not reject a takeoff due to a 'problem with autothrust' ".

However, there have been seven incidents on the B777 aircraft where crews have inadvertently engaged the autopilot on takeoff, one occurring just recently. It is a known issue, which, hopefully, FOQA programs are asking questions about.

We must wait for further details.

PJ2

One assumes Air New Zealand have started using Air France S.O.P's ? ? :rolleyes:

www.avherald.com says

An Air New Zealand Boeing 777-200, flight NZ-90 from Tokyo Narita (Japan) to Auckland (New Zealand) with 296 passengers and 13 crew, rejected takeoff from runway 34L at high speed. When the airplane came to a stand still, smoke was seen from all main tyres prompting attending emergency services to spray the wheels and overheated brakes.

The airport reported, that all 12 main gear tyres deflated due to the brakes overheat. The runway had to be closed for about 30 minutes.

Air New Zealand reported, that the crew received a warning indicating a problem with the auto thrust system and decided to reject takeoff. The airplane was able to taxi clear of the runway before emergency services started to cool the overheated brakes.

A bit disingenuous there.

"12 tyre bursts are not important"! :eek: A properly executed abort shouldn't produce anything like 12 tyre bursts - it is prima facie evidence of an abort above V1 - which would put it in the realm of untested (and thus not necessarily safe) outcomes. :cool:

djfingers- who gives a monkeys:hmm::hmm: After V1 NO ABORT unless the aeroplane is considered unairworthy....

Autothrust fail = High Speed Reject Mmmmm - let's see about this one:uhoh:

Now that's utter nonsense. The variables of aircraft and environmental conditions, as well as piloting technique during the abort, are more than sufficient to result in the potential for fuse plugs melting after a high speed reject initiated from below V1. The only prima facie evidence to be adduced from the above observation might seem to suggest an untested realm of experience with the observer.

ELAC

Bring back the real Autothrottle! The FE!

Reject beyond 80K
 

Unless it was an engine fire, fail or the aircraft was 'unsafe' to fly (as per the QRH), a reject is not recommended beyond 80K.
An auto thrust problem is not in itself, a reason to reject.

Would be quite possible for all 12 fuse plugs to melt after a close to V1 reject is what they are designed to do.
Will be interesting to see what actual problem is I think the auto throttle statement may be for the media. Unless you know the ANZ operating procedures or exactly what the problem was would be hard to know if this type of problem called for a high speed reject or not.

I have to agree with the fuse plugs blowing being pretty much an expected thing.
On the 747 Classic if you brake a touch hard when landing at max weight on a hot day you can get up near the brake temp limit without any trouble. And that's hitting the brakes at a slightly slower speed than a V1 reject, usually at a much lighter weight, and taking far more distance to stop.

You're right ELAC (I like your last sentence!) 18Wheeler is too.
I'd say you guys know what you're talking about.

Not A 777 and it is a long video, but watch the action at 5:30 and 6:01


YouTube - Airbus A340-600 Rejected Take Off

I don't think so.

Tyre Burst?
 

An RTO at V1 and MTOW results in the brakes heating to amazing temperatures. As 18-Wheeler and ELAC and PJ2 quite rightly pointed out the fuse plugs deflate the tyres to stop them exploding with the heat generated by the brakes.

I remember watching the RTO tests for the 777 certification on a DVD ages ago, and all tyres deflating is expected.

The reason for the RTO, well that's another issue, but tyres "bursting" is poor reporting.

777 TRI here- The above is utter cock.

A high speed RTO in a 777-300ER will melt fuse plugs in anything close to limiting conditions.

Indeed we had an ER land overweght using brake three (MUCH less deceleration than RTO) and IT melted all the main gear fuse plugs.

Checkboard, the above is, rather, prima facie evidence of a propensity to shoot ones mouth off without knowing the fact.

As to the reason for the reject. the basic philosophy is that the inhibit systems leaves only Aural Cautions and Warnings for items which should result in an RTO. I can't think of an Auto-thrust caution that is on that list, bu journalism being what it is, I'll reserve judgement till the facts are in.

FWIW, rumor in Narita is that when the pilot flying went to rotate, there was absolutely no response from the control column, just a clunking sound, thereby, no ability to get it off the ground. If that is true, luckily they were taking off on the long runway at NRT...

Wasn't there, haven't talked to the crew, nothing in the press here, just the rumor I heard....FYI, perhaps it's not too much to ask to have a little faith in your fellow pilots.

The gap between V1/VR on the 777 wouldn't allow the a/c to stop at rotate. It was a V1 abort and the plugs did their job. The facts will obviously come out but it is being kept quiet at the moment.

And Checkboard stop talking about things you know nothing about. Listen to the Wizofoz.