PPRuNe Forums - If your aircraft has wheels don't for get to check the brakes are off before landing

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning (https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning-93/)

- - If your aircraft has wheels don't for get to check the brakes are off before landing (https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/385710-if-your-aircraft-has-wheels-dont-get-check-brakes-off-before-landing.html)

If your aircraft has wheels don't for get to check the brakes are off before landing

Slightly off topic

Out of curiosity,

Who would have to pay for damages like this to the runway? Would the insurance cover it? Or would the airport operator factor it in? Also if the runway is closed due to such a mishap, who bears the costs?

:hmm:

Appologies if this is old news but I only saw them for the first time on an email, presumed they were recent and thought that they may be of interest :O

Does anyone have any information on the follow up report as to why this incident happened?

how the hell do you get the brakes on before landing? I would have guessed that they didnt take off with the parking brake set.

Story is that brakes set on in flight to fool the flight time - forgot to release for landing!

Geez, I bet that stretched the seatbelts to their limits! That landing deceleration must have made full reverse thrust deceleration, seem pretty tame by comparison!

What I don't understand is why the wheels/tyres didn't light up? I see no evidence of rubber having been on fire, as one would expect? Did he land on a water-soaked runway?

I must say I have new admiration for the basic integrity of Embraer undercarriage strength after seeing these pics. I can well imagine a few aircraft types where the undercarriage would have suffered total collapse due to the excessive stress generated in a rearwards direction, that few undercarriage engineers would ever allow for.

Brakes PARKED prior to Landing

Question from slot #5:

"... how ... do you get the brakes on before landing?..."

Here's one example of the process:

NTSB Identification: MIA04IA056. ... FEDERAL EX ,,, March 11, 2004 in Fort Lauderdale, FL
... A300F4-605R, registration: N682FE ... airplane had a failure of all eight main landing gear tires during the landing roll on runway 27. ... prior to departure they were given paperwork to perform an alternate brake system test in-flight. ... performed additional testing ... to troubleshoot the 2,100 psi reading on the left system. She then returned the system to normal and made a write-up ... touchdown was proper, and the airplane immediately began to decelerate. The captain asked the First Officer if he was braking and he said no. The controller then informed them that he was rolling the equipment and when they asked why, he stated because of smoke and fire. ... probable cause ... :

The flight crews' inadvertent setting of the parking brake during flight ... landed with the parking brake set and failure of all 8 main landing gear tires during the landing rollout.

There have been other airliners attempted T/O with Brakes PARKED, eg:

CHI90IA070 ... January 20, 1990 ... CEDAR RAPIDS...
... B737-300 ...N338UA... ALL FOUR MAIN LANDING GEAR TIRES FAILED DURING THE TAKEOFF ROLL JUST PRIOR TO ROTATION. THE PARKING BRAKE HAD BEEN SET ON THE ICY RUNWAY TO DO AN ENGINE RUNUP. THE CAPTAIN STATED HE HAD RELEASED THE BRAKES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ROLL, AND THE COPILOT SAID HE HAD HEARD THE BRAKES RELEASE. HOWEVER, NEITHER PILOT HAD CHECKED TO SEE IF THE RED PARKING BRAKE LIGHT WAS ON. POST INCIDENT INSPECTION REVEALED BOTH THE CAPTAIN'S AND COPILOT'S PARKING BRAKE ACTUATION RIGGING TO BE OUT OF ADJUSTMENT.

... probable cause ...:
THE FAILURE OF ALL FOUR MAIN LANDING GEAR TIRES ON TAKEOFF DUE TO THE PARKING BRAKE BEING LOCKED.

In one case, the cable to the Brakes, at a pulley in the Wheel Well, was fouled with debris that intermittently kept the BRAKES applied, even after write-ups, after examination, after "Ops Chk OK", and sign-offs.

Gobonastick is correct re location and year.

DATE: 15.09.2005
LOCAL TIME: -
LOCATION: Houston-Intl AP (KIAH) / TX
COUNTRY: USA
AIRLINE: US Airways Express (opf Midatlantic AW)
TYPE: Embraer ERJ-170
REGISTRATION: N804MD
C/N: 17000016
AGE: 1 y + 6 m
OPERATION: DSP
FLIGHT No.: -
FROM: -
TO: Houston-IAH
VIA: -
OCCUPANTS: PAX: - Crew: -
FATALITIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
INJURIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: minor/ substantial
The Aircraft landed with locked brakes in its left main gear causing significant damage before coming to rest on the runway.
SOURCE(S): airdisasters

I take it that the brake locking was a mechanical failure, rather than pilot error?
It appears that the only the left main gear was fully locked, but the right main gear tyres were shredded by the slew on touchdown?
The reason I deduct this, is that the left main wheels appear to have been totally destroyed by being locked, but the right main wheels appear to have been rotating freely?

You can see some skid marks from the right hand main but they end long before the plane came to a stop.

Various ways to x-wire sensors for Anti-skid

Two slots above "onetrack" offers an observation that relates to earlier exemplars, on other models, where mechanics had x-wired Anti-Skid sensors/control:

"... appears that the only the left main gear was fully locked, but the right main gear tyres were shredded ... the left main wheels appear ... destroyed ... locked, but the right main wheels appear to have been rotating freely?..."

There are several examples of x-wired Anti-Skid connectors, but the results differ, depending on gear design.

I recall once during B767 testing (with multiple changes of wheel/brakes/tires), that a routine Wheel/Brake change resulted in the LEFT Twin-Tandem MLG, Fwd Wheels RELEASED, while AFT Tires were both failed, only discovered during the next landing roll-out. Simple err, the Left MLG ELECTRICAL cannon plugs were REVERSED (Fore/Aft).

For the A320, the similar errs result in a different effect (failing Anti-Skid to differing Wheel-Brakes):

... CHI08IA026 ... October 09, 2007 in Chicago, IL
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20071023X01635&key=1

... DCA08IA044 ... February 25, 2008 ... Jackson, WY
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080312X00305&key=1

Here's the description of failures and cause for the 9Oct07 case:

CHI08IA026  ... UNITED ... October 09, 2007 in Chicago... A320-232 ... N431UA ...
... left main landing gear inboard and outboard anti skid tachometers wiring were reversed during scheduled maintenance at a vendor. During landing, the inboard left main landing gear's wheels went to a high braking level and the outboard wheel did not apply braking. ... the built in test equipment test ... not check for cross-wired tachometers. ...

... the probable cause(s)...:
The misrouted and reversed antiskid wiring by vendor maintenance personnel leading to the runway excursion. Contributing ... vendor's maintenance personnel not understand ... procedures in the dual tachometer replacement, and the operator's maintenance procedures being unclear to the maintenance personnel.

Interesting that the mx-err (CONTRACT Mx x-wire) remained a passive, hidden failure, during the following 68 airline flights:
"... released from TIMCO on September 23 and subsequently flew 68 cycles...."