Qantas jet blows three tires on takeoff

[baswitzer]

Just happened apparently on take off from LAX. Take off had to be aborted. The bad run for Qantas maintenance continues...

 

[Evan]

Just happened apparently on take off from LAX. Take off had to be aborted. The bad run for Qantas maintenance continues...

Maybe, maybe not... could well have been something on the runway, thats not a very normal thing to happen at all.
E

 

[Mal]

I heard it was 4 that were blown.

It'll be all over the news tomorrow in Australia, so we'll know the full details then.

 

[oz_mark]

Maybe the blown tires were the result of the abort rather than the cause.

 

[Mal]

http://origin.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8689206

The Associated Press
Article Launched: 03/25/2008 01:57:15 AM PDT

LOS ANGELES—An official at Los Angeles International Airport says an Australia-bound jetliner carrying hundreds of passengers blew four tires while trying to take off and got stranded on the runway.

LAX spokeswoman Treva (Treh-vuh) Miller says none of the 232 passengers or crew on Qantas flight 12 was hurt in the incident late Monday.

Flight operations at the airport are not expected to be affected.

Miller says the pilot aborted takeoff after he noticed a warning light go off as he took the Boeing 747-400 down the runway at 11:05 p.m. The plane came to rest, stuck on an adjacent runway.

Emergency personnel got everyone off the jet without incident.

A Qantas official says the passengers were taken to hotels and would be placed on flights to Sydney later Tuesday.

 

[NM]

Just happened apparently on take off from LAX. Take off had to be aborted. The bad run for Qantas maintenance continues...

What does this incident have to do with maintenance? Do you have more information about the reason for the aborted takeoff than has been reported elsewhere? Seems a little premature to start laying blame .

 

[Evan]

I heard it was 4 that were blown.

It'll be all over the news tomorrow in Australia, so we'll know the full details then.

Hey Mal, because the news always tells the truth and the whole story

(and yes i know what you mean)

E

 

[baswitzer]

What does this incident have to do with maintenance? Do you have more information about the reason for the aborted takeoff than has been reported elsewhere? Seems a little premature to start laying blame .

Yes my apologies. I was a little hasty.

 

[QF WP]

Just listening to Skynews in my hotel room and heard the news - as reported in Mal's post of 8.26pm. Soppose they'll be transferred to other flights or take the next day's QF12.

Will be interesting to hear how the tyres blew - having 4 go at once certainly sounds like something on the tarmac

 

[oz_mark]

Will be interesting to hear how the tyres blew - having 4 go at once certainly sounds like something on the tarmac

...or they melted during the braking.

 

[littl_flier]

The SMH has an article about QF's recent incidents and the profit.

QANTAS has had its fourth safety scare since announcing a record half-yearly profit last month.

Qantas jet blows tyres on take-off - Travel - smh.com.au

 

[littl_flier]

There's quite an informative article here which covers alot more facts than the other articles posted to date.

The pilot of a Quantas Airways jumbo jet with 232 passengers and crew members on board abruptly aborted his takeoff after a warning light came on in the coughpit, braking so sharply that four tires went flat, authorities said today.

....


The pilot hit the brakes and the abrupt stop caused four of the plane's tires to deflate, she said, adding that the plane came to rest on an adjacent taxiway.

Jet Blows Tires During Takeoff at LAX | News | KTLA The CW | Where Los Angeles Lives

Though given that they can't spell Qantas and the BAe146 in the picture doesn't exist in the fleet (and it would have to hop back from LAX) I can't guarantee anything.

 

[futaris]

According to Track Flight Status, Airport Delays and other Flight and Airport Information it just departed at 2:07PM.

 

[serfty]

There's more information on this now:

• Qantas tyre blow scare - Travel - smh.com.au

Selected Excerpts:

The Sydney-bound plane, with 232 passengers and crew aboard, was speeding down the runway when the pilot noticed a warning light in the coughpit.

The pilot aborted take-off and passengers were told to "brace".

Three tyres on the Boeing 747-400 blew as plane made the emergency stop.

Peter McHale, a pilot flying for American Airlines, said the tyres on the Qantas plane likely blew from the weight of the aircraft as it slowed down dramatically.

He said the planes are programmed to "automatically" abort the takeoff if the pilot chooses.

"If there's any reason to stop the plane they pull the power back and this rejected takeoff setting automatically kicks in and begins to brake the aircraft and it's very heavy braking," McHale told reporters at LA airport.

ATSB spokesman Ian Brokenshire said the bureau was awaiting a report from the airline and would decide then whether to investigate the incident.

"At this stage it sounds like its been handled according to standard operating procedure," Mr Brokenshire said.

"Yes it sounds a bit dramatic but there were no injuries and people disembarked via portable stairs. The tyres deflating is all part of the safety system of the aircraft."

Here's an image of it:

(Source: Qantas jumbo aborts in high speed take-off from LA Airport | Herald Sun)

 

[Keith009]

I'm more intrigued as to the cause of the warning in the flight deck which led to the aborted take off.

 

[simongr]

The Ch 9 news was surprisingly balanced this evening - despite the headline of course...

 

[maninblack]

I wonder about some of the reports in the Herald-Sun story. I am not a pilot but if the plane has passed VR and is already in rotation, is the pilot in a position to abort the landing given their speed and available runway for braking? Any which way if the plane had reached VR, somewhere around 165 knots depending on takeoff weight and then chose to abort, braking would be extreme and potentially blow tyres as sometimes occurs in 100 percent maximum brake energy rejected takeoff tests. The real question is what was the warning light for that caused the crew to choose to reject takeoff?

 

[dot]

There seems to have been a lot of journalistic license extended to this story - look at this article on News.com.au and despite the headlines in the article, it looks like the tyres slowly deflated as the 747 came to a stop on the taxiway due to the close to max weight of the aircraft and a high stress abort. The tyres did not 'blow out' at all. At least that is the view of the expert (an AA Pilot) that NBC spoke to - something I am more inclined to believe than a reporter looking for a bigger rating headline. Interestingly, when smh.com.au reported on the same expert (See Serfty's post above), they used the term 'blew' rather than deflate. I guess it sounds more dramatic.

I was also amused to note headlines such as "US aviation watchdog to investigate Qantas" as I am sure the ATSB expects a report on any safety incident just as CASA does. So the 'investigation' is nothing more than business as usual.

Some more examples of this type of journalistic license can be seen among these headlines.

While I do not claim to know exactly what happened in Wunala Dreaming that caused the abort, I do not believe it is anything like as significant as most of the 'news' articles would have us believe.

 

[NM]

I wonder about some of the reports in the Herald-Sun story. I am not a pilot but if the plane has passed VR and is already in rotation, is the pilot in a position to abort the landing given their speed and available runway for braking? Any which way if the plane had reached VR, somewhere around 165 knots depending on takeoff weight and then chose to abort, braking would be extreme and potentially blow tyres as sometimes occurs in 100 percent maximum brake energy rejected takeoff tests. The real question is what was the warning light for that caused the crew to choose to reject takeoff?

VR is not the decision point for take-off. Its the speed at which the pilot should pull back on the stick to "rotate" for take-off. There are two other speeds that are the decision points, being V1 and V2.

V1 is the "Critical Engine Failure Recognition Speed". If the alert was received before reaching V1, the take-off should be aborted. This is the speed below which it is safe to stop the aircraft on the ground. It is determined based on the weight of the aircraft, atmospheric conditions (temperature, airport altitude etc) and the available length of the runway. It is calculated for each flight as these conditions can change.

If V1 has been exceeded and an engine fails, then the choice to abort the take-off has also passed. After V1 the pilot has no choice but to take-off even if an engine has failed.

VR is the rotation speed and is the speed at which the pilot pulls back on the stick to raise the nose. For a fully loaded 744, VR would be somewhere around 190 knots.

V2 is the "Take-off Safety Speed". This is the minimum speed that must be maintained after takeoff (technically in the second phase of climb), if there is an engine failure. It is determined based on the aircraft needing to fly with a single engine failure. In the case a 747, that would be the failure of one of the outboard engines, which caused maximum asymmetric thrust requiring a minimum airflow over the vertical stabiliser to compensate.

V2 is always higher than VR. I guess it is technically possible that with a very long runway that V1 may actually be higher than VR. However, it is my understanding that in such a case V1 would adjusted down so that it is always less than or equal to VR.

 

[moa999]

Answer from poster hardworker over at PPRune (I don't profess to understand all of this)

Qf Vh-oej
Take Config Warning sounded 30kts below V1- Stab

Vh-oej Rto
At 122kts on take off EICAS annuciated Take OFF Warning Config Msg Stab fault traced to L/H RVDT stab postion giving incorrect info to the FCU then onto SRM which then dispalyed the warning. Crew Rejected takeoff as any would with a config warning msg. Had the aircraft become airbourne they most probably would have had EICAS warning Stab Trim and unschedule Stab Trim which would have been an ATB. The RTO was carried out as normal, as the aircraft was heavy 380+tonnes the tyres failed from heat build up. Loan parts borrowed, aircraft back in SYD