EY plane stuck on runway at MEL for 14 hours after tyres burst

[jb747]

The exploding tyres theory is a myth. The tyres are designed to deflate not explode when they overheat . There are fusible plugs which overheat at a certain temp causing the tyres to deflate, not burst or explode.

It's not an instant effect either, so I'd expect the tyres were still all happily inflated when the aircraft came to a halt. The heat would have continued to soak in from the brakes, and eventually the plugs would go, deflating the tyres. You should have a few minutes in which you can safely taxi clear of the runway, and the area at the end of 34 on alpha, is wide, and an ideal spot to stop.

That's a new one. My understanding was that the aircraft was disabled on the runway due to numerous? deflated tyres. Whether the undercarriage was damaged in the event is unknown.

I'd be extremely surprised if the undercarriage was damaged at all. On the other hand, it is a new Boeing. I expect the real issue would be finding a complete set of 787 wheels/tyres.

Questions I have though.

Why did it stop so soon? There's still a couple of thousand feet of runway left, and you may as well use it all.

Did they ever disengage the autobrake? If it engages in RTO, it directs all of the hydraulic pressure to the brakes, and the only modulation is done by the anti-skid. Once you have the speed under control, there is no reason to continue such heavy braking.

Why did they really abort? According to FR24 they had a ground speed of 158 knots, and that must have been very close to V1. To be honest, I'd expect V1 to have been slightly slower, but I'll have to check up on that with someone who flies the 787. Noticing a high EGT is unlikely, but even if they did, it is not, in itself sufficient cause to execute a high speed RTO. To give you an idea, a take-off briefing, might include something along the lines of "We'll abort for any warning below 100 knots. Between 100 and V1, we'll only abort for engine failure, or fire." Almost all warnings are inhibited above around 80-100 knots. With few exceptions, a high speed abort is more dangerous than taking any issue flying.

 

[flydoc]

It's not an instant effect either, so I'd expect the tyres were still all happily inflated when the aircraft came to a halt. The heat would have continued to soak in from the brakes, and eventually the plugs would go, deflating the tyres. You should have a few minutes in which you can safely taxi clear of the runway, and the area at the end of 34 on alpha, is wide, and an ideal spot to stop.

I'd be extremely surprised if the undercarriage was damaged at all. On the other hand, it is a new Boeing. I expect the real issue would be finding a complete set of 787 wheels/tyres.

Questions I have though.

Why did it stop so soon? There's still a couple of thousand feet of runway left, and you may as well use it all.

Did they ever disengage the autobrake? If it engages in RTO, it directs all of the hydraulic pressure to the brakes, and the only modulation is done by the anti-skid. Once you have the speed under control, there is no reason to continue such heavy braking.

Why did they really abort? According to FR24 they had a ground speed of 158 knots, and that must have been very close to V1. To be honest, I'd expect V1 to have been slightly slower, but I'll have to check up on that with someone who flies the 787. Noticing a high EGT is unlikely, but even if they did, it is not, in itself sufficient cause to execute a high speed RTO. To give you an idea, a take-off briefing, might include something along the lines of "We'll abort for any warning below 100 knots. Between 100 and V1, we'll only abort for engine failure, or fire." Almost all warnings are inhibited above around 80-100 knots. With few exceptions, a high speed abort is more dangerous than taking any issue flying.

Plenty of factors there that I'd have thought would benefit from further investigation , but

"The ATSB said the rejected take-off was conducted in line with standard operating procedures...and has determined it will not conduct an investigation into the incident," it said in a statement to the ABC.

 

[OATEK]

...

Why did they really abort? According to FR24 they had a ground speed of 158 knots, and that must have been very close to V1. To be honest, I'd expect V1 to have been slightly slower, but I'll have to check up on that with someone who flies the 787. Noticing a high EGT is unlikely, but even if they did, it is not, in itself sufficient cause to execute a high speed RTO. To give you an idea, a take-off briefing, might include something along the lines of "We'll abort for any warning below 100 knots. Between 100 and V1, we'll only abort for engine failure, or fire." Almost all warnings are inhibited above around 80-100 knots. With few exceptions, a high speed abort is more dangerous than taking any issue flying.

The latest article based on ATSB source says that a high exhaust temp, that could suggest engine issues, led to the decision to abort the take-off.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/atsb-reveals-why-etihad-pilots-were-right-to-reject-takeoff-at-melbourne-airport/news-story/fc3f203c240b0148f65ceb0777fdc510

Doesn't answer some of your other whys though (eg not to roll on to a better spot to stop).

 

[Quickstatus]

and has determined it will not conduct an investigation into the incident

So some unanswered questions will remain unanswered.

there is no reason to continue such heavy braking.

Can autobrake be "derated" to use more of (calculated) available runway?