747-100/200 Brake Overheating
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747-100/200 Brake Overheating
I have a friend who used to fly a 747-100/200F into Kabul on a fairly regular basis. I was amazed when he told me about the problems they used to have with brakes overheating and tire fuse plugs thermaling.
He said they almost always landed at their maximum landing weight (tankering fuel), which usually required a medium setting on the autobrakes at Kabul. But, he said if they didn't reach up and go to minimum on the autobrakes once they touched down and got into reverse, they would likely thermal the tires due to the brake temperatures exceeding 800 to 1,000 degrees F once they taxied in and parked on the ramp.
In other words, their runway analysis stated that they could land on a particular runway with medium autobrakes at a certain weight and atmospheric condition, but using medium autobrakes all the way down to a stop would result in thermaling most of the tires.
I thought the landing performance was predicated on getting it completely stopped within 60% of the runway with maximum braking. Wouldn't this imply that there is something wrong here if doing so would cause the tires to thermal? Shouldn't maximum braking to a full stop mean that they should even have been able to do it with the autobrakes on max. Thoughts? Thanks.
He said they almost always landed at their maximum landing weight (tankering fuel), which usually required a medium setting on the autobrakes at Kabul. But, he said if they didn't reach up and go to minimum on the autobrakes once they touched down and got into reverse, they would likely thermal the tires due to the brake temperatures exceeding 800 to 1,000 degrees F once they taxied in and parked on the ramp.
In other words, their runway analysis stated that they could land on a particular runway with medium autobrakes at a certain weight and atmospheric condition, but using medium autobrakes all the way down to a stop would result in thermaling most of the tires.
I thought the landing performance was predicated on getting it completely stopped within 60% of the runway with maximum braking. Wouldn't this imply that there is something wrong here if doing so would cause the tires to thermal? Shouldn't maximum braking to a full stop mean that they should even have been able to do it with the autobrakes on max. Thoughts? Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly 747-200 around the Saudi, UAE and Somalia areas for some years, and had only one single tire on one occasion 'thermal' out on me!
The technique we found worked best for us was to not select any autobrakes at all, use max reverse at the earliest opportunity, then use manual braking, as required, below 100 knots, and always use the entire available runway. With that technique, as I said, we had few brake overheat problems. Oh they certainly got hot, but stayed up!
The one time we did deflate a tire, this technique wasn't used and we were very lucky not to have many more than one deflate, and we only had one spare on board!
Great to have an FE on board, isn't it...got it changed using assorted local lifting/inflation equipment, and we were away back to Jeddah in good time!
The technique we found worked best for us was to not select any autobrakes at all, use max reverse at the earliest opportunity, then use manual braking, as required, below 100 knots, and always use the entire available runway. With that technique, as I said, we had few brake overheat problems. Oh they certainly got hot, but stayed up!
The one time we did deflate a tire, this technique wasn't used and we were very lucky not to have many more than one deflate, and we only had one spare on board!
Great to have an FE on board, isn't it...got it changed using assorted local lifting/inflation equipment, and we were away back to Jeddah in good time!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Runway analysis" just tells you if you can stop, not how hot the brakes are going to get. "Maximum brake energy" is a LOT more than the energy required to get them hot enough to melt a fuse plug or trigger the overheat warning.
Indeed, braking too hard, too early will exacerbate the situation when the brakes or stopping distance is marginal. 747 Classic crews should realize that great care must be taken when more than Min Autobrakes are required.
Indeed, braking too hard, too early will exacerbate the situation when the brakes or stopping distance is marginal. 747 Classic crews should realize that great care must be taken when more than Min Autobrakes are required.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies. It sounds like the crews do all kinds of unorthodox things to keep from overheating the brakes. Runway analysis tells you if you can stop, but if the analysis says you must use medium autobrakes -- not low -- why would you have to switch to low autobrakes once you touched down to prevent thermaling the tires? It seems to me that something is wrong if he can't leave medium autobrakes all the way down to a full stop.
I used to fly 747-200 around the Saudi, UAE and Somalia areas for some years, and had only one single tire on one occasion 'thermal' out on me!
The technique we found worked best for us was to not select any autobrakes at all, use max reverse at the earliest opportunity, then use manual braking, as required, below 100 knots, and always use the entire available runway. With that technique, as I said, we had few brake overheat problems. Oh they certainly got hot, but stayed up!
The technique we found worked best for us was to not select any autobrakes at all, use max reverse at the earliest opportunity, then use manual braking, as required, below 100 knots, and always use the entire available runway. With that technique, as I said, we had few brake overheat problems. Oh they certainly got hot, but stayed up!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CF6,
Take the 737-400. Take a hot day into an airfield at altitude with no reverse at MLW with max brakes.
This also puts you into fuse plug melt zone.
Use the procedure above - Reversers and no autobrakes till 100kt means you won't have any limits on a subsequent quick departure, because the brakes will be cool enough...
Not just the jumbo!
Take the 737-400. Take a hot day into an airfield at altitude with no reverse at MLW with max brakes.
This also puts you into fuse plug melt zone.
Use the procedure above - Reversers and no autobrakes till 100kt means you won't have any limits on a subsequent quick departure, because the brakes will be cool enough...
Not just the jumbo!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I handled 747-100 and -200 staging through Dubai - some of them flown by 18 Wheeler - and found that it depended on who was landing the thing as to what the brake temps would be.The same individuals would arrive on the gate with the brakes smoking every time while others would have brakes in the green or low amber.For some reason the Canadian pilots would have consistently lower temps than most others.From what I recall those that did not use auto-brake arrived with lower temps. In Dubai there really was no excuse as the runway length did not require heavy braking. Hiring 2 airconditioning units plus operators from Dnata was not cheap and we had delays when they were not available. Do not ever allow anyone to pour water on hot brakes - Boeing allows a fine mist only.
Good to see my old friend 18 Wheeler is still around.
Good to see my old friend 18 Wheeler is still around.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They use an OPS computer program, just like a lot of carriers do on the 747-400's. You enter your landing weight, landing runway and ATIS information and it spits out the stopping distance with various autobrake settings. In the case of the classic, that would be minimum, medium or maximum. If the stopping distance with that autobrake setting is greater than the runway length, then that autobrake setting is grayed out so you can't use it.
In the case of going into Kabul at max landing weight, the minimum setting is usually grayed out, so the crews would have to use medium. What was happening was that crews were often late to go to minimum once they felt they could get it stopped by the end of the runway with the lower deceleration rate that min autobrakes would give (also using max reversing). As a result, they would end up thermaling tires and getting stuck there.
It just seems odd to me that under normal conditions, any amount of braking would result in thermaled tires if the analysis said you can dispatch to that runway. For instance, if you truly were right at the limit on a dry 10,000' runway, F.A.R. 121.195 requires that you get it stopped by the 6,000' mark (60%). I would presume that this is with maximum manual braking as Mutt pointed out. As far as I know, you can outbrake maximum autobrakes (but not RTO), so even a max autobrake setting would actually be something less than max manual braking.
Given the example above with max braking on the 10,000' runway, you should be able to leave the autobrakes on max all the way down to a stop and still not thermal the tires, right? These guys were thermaling tires with autobrakes on medium.
Also, FAR 25.125 requires that "[t]he brakes may not be used so as to cause excessive wear of brakes or tires." I can't imagine that thermaling tires would be acceptable to the regulators but excessive brake or tire wear would not.
In the case of going into Kabul at max landing weight, the minimum setting is usually grayed out, so the crews would have to use medium. What was happening was that crews were often late to go to minimum once they felt they could get it stopped by the end of the runway with the lower deceleration rate that min autobrakes would give (also using max reversing). As a result, they would end up thermaling tires and getting stuck there.
It just seems odd to me that under normal conditions, any amount of braking would result in thermaled tires if the analysis said you can dispatch to that runway. For instance, if you truly were right at the limit on a dry 10,000' runway, F.A.R. 121.195 requires that you get it stopped by the 6,000' mark (60%). I would presume that this is with maximum manual braking as Mutt pointed out. As far as I know, you can outbrake maximum autobrakes (but not RTO), so even a max autobrake setting would actually be something less than max manual braking.
Given the example above with max braking on the 10,000' runway, you should be able to leave the autobrakes on max all the way down to a stop and still not thermal the tires, right? These guys were thermaling tires with autobrakes on medium.
Also, FAR 25.125 requires that "[t]he brakes may not be used so as to cause excessive wear of brakes or tires." I can't imagine that thermaling tires would be acceptable to the regulators but excessive brake or tire wear would not.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manual Braking v's AutoBrake
In my time on the Classic (200-300 & 200F) with a well known HK operator Auto Brake was rarely used, predominately Full Flap, Max Reverse and Manual Braking. Never had a fusible plug melt or an overheated brake in the ME or anywhere else. Something to be said for the maintenance of manual skills in the Pilot world.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the good fortune to fly the same airframes Old Fella did, albeit in the last three years of their operational lifetimes... they may have been twenty-year-old airframes and probably not performing as well as the tables and graphs suggested, but no autobrake/full reverse after touchdown and a smooth, gentle application of brakes below 100 kts was definitely the best way to go on the -200, especially in BOM or DXB in the summer.
I miss the old girl, but with the -400's carbon brakes life is so much easier!
MD
I miss the old girl, but with the -400's carbon brakes life is so much easier!
MD
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to handle a 742F out of KMIA that used to thermal tires on a regular basis on a 13,00 ft rwy and had understood that it was the operator's manual that encouraged autobrakes was the fault. The damn pisser was once one blew I was guaranteed 4-6 more.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate all the replies. The consensus seems to be to refrain from using autobrakes and use superior airman skills to get it stopped without overheating the brakes. But I'm still trying to figure out whether there was something wrong with their aircraft when a medium autobrake setting would often cause thermaling, given that the analysis (approved by Boeing) is predicated on max manual braking to a full stop. I understand that the 60% rule of 14 C.F.R. 121.195 is for dispatch purposes only and not actual landing where you can take credit for reverse, but it's difficult to believe that the numbers produced by the analysis would result in thermaled tires if actually carried out.
Last edited by cf6-80c2b5f; 21st Mar 2013 at 20:22.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ME
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they make brakes that hot on landing, touching down in the beginning of the RW, then what do they have on their takeoff performance with presumably higher weight rejecting in the end??????
Something is wrong here...
Something is wrong here...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: TLV
Age: 50
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maximum quick turn weight
We had on our airport analysis a "maximum quick turn weight". It was usually well below max landing weight for a given runway and it guaranteed that you can get the brakes cold enough for another takeoff in an hour.
Our technique for dry runways was to land with autobrakes MED, and once touchdown was made at the proper point and reversers out you would disconnect the aurobrakes and let the t/rs do their job.
On wet or worse there was no overheating problem.
Also the taxi-in technique was important, not riding the brakes and shutting down #3.
Our technique for dry runways was to land with autobrakes MED, and once touchdown was made at the proper point and reversers out you would disconnect the aurobrakes and let the t/rs do their job.
On wet or worse there was no overheating problem.
Also the taxi-in technique was important, not riding the brakes and shutting down #3.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romasik: That is a good point. If the brakes couldn't absorb the energy to get it stopped on a landing without thermaling tires, did they really have the ability to stop it on a rejected takeoff?
Dieseldude: It sounds like everyone had their own technique for not thermaling tires, but I am trying to find an answer to this question: If the runway analysis says you can dispatch to a particular runway, shouldn't you be able to apply max brakes to a full stop on landing and not thermal tires if the brakes/tires/aircraft are properly maintained? I know it's not the preferred technique, but the question still stands.
Dieseldude: It sounds like everyone had their own technique for not thermaling tires, but I am trying to find an answer to this question: If the runway analysis says you can dispatch to a particular runway, shouldn't you be able to apply max brakes to a full stop on landing and not thermal tires if the brakes/tires/aircraft are properly maintained? I know it's not the preferred technique, but the question still stands.
Last edited by cf6-80c2b5f; 21st Mar 2013 at 20:59.
Romasik: That is a good point. If the brakes couldn't absorb the energy to get it stopped on a landing without thermaling tires, did they really have the ability to stop it on a rejected takeoff?
That's what they're for.
Hey Mr B, ya wee fella!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect the thermal plugs to melt on a rejected takeoff because the brake energy charts state that they will above a certain speed and weight. I think the point Romasik was making wasn't that the thermal plugs would not melt on a reject -- he was saying that if the brakes were so poor that they couldn't withstand a normal landing with autobrakes in medium, do they really have the capacity to stop on a reject, as advertised.
When you say that it's not unreasonable to expect the thermal plugs to stay intact during a "normal landing," would you consider a medium autobrake setting to a full stop to be a normal landing?
When you say that it's not unreasonable to expect the thermal plugs to stay intact during a "normal landing," would you consider a medium autobrake setting to a full stop to be a normal landing?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Applying more brakes early will force the brakes to absorb more energy, therefore increasing the chance of overheating. Remember that Boeing Autobrakes (other than at Max or RTO) attempt to maintain a constant deceleration rate, not a constant energy-absorption rate. Because energy absorbed is proportional to the square of the ground speed, the brakes can withstand a higher deceleration rate at low airspeed without overheating. Clearly, using max Reverse immediately after touchdown will help prevent brake overheating by dissipating much of the energy that would otherwise be absorbed by the brakes.
AFAIK, OPS only 'worries' about the Maximum Brake Energy published by Boeing, and NOT whether or not the thermal plugs might melt. Also, OPS (as configured for our Classics) did not use Thrust Reverser credit for the Operational Landing Performance.
Note that the limit certification criteria for a rejected takeoff only require that a severe fire will not break out for 5 minutes after a max-TOGW rejected takeoff. Thermal plugs merely help prevent tires from exploding when they are overheated, so they may melt well before the max brake energy is absorbed if a tire is heated quickly by hard braking at high speed.
AFAIK, OPS only 'worries' about the Maximum Brake Energy published by Boeing, and NOT whether or not the thermal plugs might melt. Also, OPS (as configured for our Classics) did not use Thrust Reverser credit for the Operational Landing Performance.
Note that the limit certification criteria for a rejected takeoff only require that a severe fire will not break out for 5 minutes after a max-TOGW rejected takeoff. Thermal plugs merely help prevent tires from exploding when they are overheated, so they may melt well before the max brake energy is absorbed if a tire is heated quickly by hard braking at high speed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 59
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intruder:
I won't argue with what you just said, but the question still remains:
If the runway analysis says you can dispatch to a particular runway, shouldn't you be able to apply max brakes to a full stop on landing and not thermal tires if the brakes/tires/aircraft are properly maintained?
I won't argue with what you just said, but the question still remains:
If the runway analysis says you can dispatch to a particular runway, shouldn't you be able to apply max brakes to a full stop on landing and not thermal tires if the brakes/tires/aircraft are properly maintained?