Qantas Jet Blows tires On takeoff from LAX

[Matt_L]

An official at Los Angeles International Airport says an Australia-bound Qantas jet carrying hundreds of passengers blew four tyres while trying to take off and got stranded on the runway.

Airport spokeswoman Treva Miller says none of the 232 passengers or crew on Qantas Flight 12 to Sydney was hurt in the incident late yesterday.

Flight operations at the airport were 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 11.05pm (1705 AEDT).

The plane came to rest, stuck on an adjacent runway.

Emergency personnel got everyone off the jet without incident.

AP

[Lukas M]

http://origin.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8689206?nclick_check=1

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230382

Newsbreak said 3 tyres burst, it was VH-OEJ, quite new

[Nick W.]

channel 9 said 3 tyres, but whatever.

headline to the latest C9 news bulletin, with images of the aircraft and voiceover saying it is stranded on the taxiway.

it is Wunula.

[John R]

An official at Los Angeles International Airport says an Australia-bound Qantas jet carrying hundreds of passengers blew four tyres while trying to take off and got stranded on the runway.

more details (plus grainy pic) http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230382

[NickN]

From reading alot of message boards it seems these events are fairly common (blown tires). How often are they expected to happen?

Obviously the tires are checked prior to every departure, what would the reason for a blowout of 3 tires be?

[Craig Murray]

what would the reason for a blowout of 3 tires be?

From hearing reports ranging from passengers being thrown out of their seats and the take off being aborted while the nose was off the ground I think it would be a safe assumption that the tyres (I prefer the Australian spelling of round rubber things) were blown during the rejected take off (RTO) phase of the departure. Given the aircrafts high gross weight for the flight across the Pacific a rejected take off easily has the potential to cause burst tyres. Howver in this instance I think it would be pretty safe to say the tyre issue was a result of another issue on board that gave the crew reason to reject the departure.

As always, I'd prefer to come to a stop on the runway with a few tyres deflated than end up scattered across the floor of the Pacific Ocean because the crew decided to ignore an aircraft fault.

But seriously, passengers thrown out of their seats? Faulty seatbelts, faulty passengers or faulty media reporting?

[Ryan N]

According to Sunrise on channel 7, the tyres automatically blow out as a safety precaution, to prevent overheating and causing a fire.

[Kent Broadhead]

What a stupid emphasis in the story - the tyres are always likely to burst in that situation. More importantly - why was the takeoff rejecdted at that late stage?

Kent

[Sarah C]

There is a lot of hysteria about the story and already a lot of "experts" on the breakfast TV shows speculating without any facts. Let the investigators do thier job - the passengers are on thier way now. As Craig said, I think all of the passengers would have preferred that stop than ignore a warning light and have a major accident somewhere over the Pacific.

[Simon Hoby]

I think the most accurate report that I have heard so far came from the reporter that Channel 7 had at LAX. He said that the there were three tyres that blew, apparently by design as well. He said that an Engineer had told him that because of the intense internal pressure that the tyres are subject to during at emergency stop, they are fitted with a thermal plug which is designed to rupture. This apparently prevents a fire which could spread to the aircraft.

Additionally they said it was QF12 with 217 people on board. hardly a full load for a 744. The aircraft is still at LAX as it needed to be inspected and obviously fitted with new tyres as well.

[Michael H]

Is there any indication as to how long it will remain at LAX for? I'm presuming that one of the morning inbound a/c did a quick turnaround and operated at QF12 today at 1.50pm local.

That said, QF 12 is still showing sked for its regular flight tonight as well.

[Grant Smith]

There is a lot of hysteria about the story and already a lot of "experts" on the breakfast TV shows speculating without any facts. Let the investigators do thier job - the passengers are on thier way now. As Craig said, I think all of the passengers would have preferred that stop than ignore a warning light and have a major accident somewhere over the Pacific.


Sarah C,

Are you and Nigel C related?

I'm sensing a lot of similarities...

[Sarah C]

Sarah C,

Are you and Nigel C related?

I'm sensing a lot of similarities...

No we are not........seems there are others who agree about the 'hysteria' if you read the comments below

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,23433335-5014090,00.html

[James K]

Long time reader first time poster! :) OEJ was going to operate the delayed QF012 but an aircraft change took place overnight as it has to wait for parts. Last I saw it was scheduled to operate QF012 on Tuesday night ex LAX - obviously providing it's serviceable.

[Montague S]

No we are not........seems there are others who agree about the 'hysteria' if you read the comments below

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,23433335-5014090,00.html

what do you expect from Murdoch? why do you bother reading it and stating the obvious here? we've known for years that news ltd media is full of it. :rolleyes:

[Sarah C]

what do you expect from Murdoch? why do you bother reading it and stating the obvious here? we've known for years that news ltd media is full of it. :rolleyes:

You are right Monty - I didn't expect anything different from News Ltd but interestingly most of the comments are having a go at the way the story was written. The media make a huge story out of nothing, and all it does is scare some passengers who don't travel regularly.

[Tim Bowrey]

Hey everyone its good to be back on the forum after not knowing this one was around since vpmag.com

I thought it was very sad to see Wunala Dreaming sitting on the taxiway at LAX with all the cars around it. Im not 100% sure but i was told the nose gear was off the ground as the flight crew saw the warning light on and as they lowered the aircraft onto the runway, thats when the wheels busted.

Tim

[Tim Bowrey]

I was just browsing Sydney Airport website and UA839 was cancelled today also from LAX. Would it have anything to do with the Qantas 12 flight? According to Sydneyairport.com QF12 is due to arrive tonight at 10:11pm so obviously has left LAX.

QF12 Los Angeles 26/03/2008 26/03/2008
07:00am 10:11pm

UA839 Flt Cancelled 26/03/2008 26/03/2008
07:05am 07:05am

Tim

[Sarah C]

I was just browsing Sydney Airport website and UA839 was cancelled today also from LAX. Would it have anything to do with the Qantas 12 flight? According to Sydneyairport.com QF12 is due to arrive tonight at 10:11pm so obviously has left LAX.

QF12 Los Angeles 26/03/2008 26/03/2008
07:00am 10:11pm

UA839 Flt Cancelled 26/03/2008 26/03/2008
07:05am 07:05am

Tim

I doubt there is any link. UA had another flight delayed/cancelled over the weekend, so it may be a flow on effect from there.

[Tim Bowrey]

I doubt there is any link. UA had another flight delayed/cancelled over the weekend, so it may be a flow on effect from there.

Yeah that UA delayed flight arrived about 10mins ago as UA9822. Im not sure where it will go from here if it will depart back to LAX as UA9823 later this afternoon or what? About the UA aircraft parked at the Parking area near General Holmes Drive im not sure.

Tim

[Nigel C]

There was one parked there on Monday night...not sure if it's the same one...I WAS on days off until I got the call to work tonight (O/T)

[Adam G]

Hey everyone its good to be back on the forum after not knowing this one was around since vpmag.com

I thought it was very sad to see Wunala Dreaming sitting on the taxiway at LAX with all the cars around it. Im not 100% sure but i was told the nose gear was off the ground as the flight crew saw the warning light on and as they lowered the aircraft onto the runway, thats when the wheels busted.

Tim

The nose whel being off the ground wouldn't be possible. Vr (rotation speed) occurs after V1 (go/no go speed) - anything after V1 is a go call.

Most airlines also normally have a further, lower speed (80 or 100kts commonly used) - any issue below that speed results in an abort while anything between that speed & V1 only results in an abort if it is a critical issue, due to the possible aircraft damage & higher risks a high speed rejection carry.

[Mark Grima]

From what I read this morning (Fairfax papers only, refused to look at the news ltd stuff in relation to this...) it seems that everything that was meant to do something did it on this occasion. The tyres that were meant to burst did, the pilot stopped the aircraft safetly, that cabin crew kept every one calm and the pax seemed to stay calm and in control of them sleves through out the event.

Does anyone know what warning light went off to cause this?

Cheers

M

[Adrian B]

Does anyone know what warning light went off to cause this?

Cheers

M

Low Coffee

[Adam P.]

Low Coffee ...because the flight attendants had been pouring it down the drain again...

[Steve B.]

I also heard the ridiculous report (Channel 10 Adelaide) that over 100 passengers were thrown from their seats during the rejected take off. Fortunately, they reported, no one was injured. What a joke some of these so called news services are.

Just to clear up a point of contention, the B744 has fusible plugs fitted into all of the wheel rims that contain brake components. During a rejected take off, and subsequent heavy braking, the brake components become very hot; this heat is transferred into the rims thus heating up the gas in the tyres. If uncontrolled, the expansion of the gas will cause the tyre pressure to rise to the extent that the tyre will burst causing substantial damage. The fusible plugs allow a controlled release of the heated gas thus reducing the pressure within the tyres and preventing the tyres from bursting. Usually, this "over pressure" situation occurs after the braking has been completed, the heat transference is not immediate. In this case, I believe, the tyres deflated after the aircraft had vacated the active RWY onto a TWY or crossing RWY and was stationary.



Now, the interesting thing will be to find out why the crew rejected the take-off. In almost 35 years of working in control towers I have only seen one "real" rejected take-off; it was not a pretty sight. Saw plenty of "training" rejected take-offs, nowhere near as dramatic.

[David Sims]

Glad to hear no one on board was injured.

[Ryan N]

What time did the flight arrive last night? The Qantas website is down at the moment so I could not search for it there.

[Malcolm Parker]

1016pm was the arrival time for QF12

[Shameel Kumar]

I was out at SYD this morning, saw Wunala (-OEJ) being towed to the MX area..and as I drove around past The Pond I couldn't see her, so I'm guessing she's being closely inspected behind closed doors.

Nonetheless, it was good to see her back on home soil and getting the care she needs! :)

Which flight number did -OEJ operate from LAX after getting her repairs?

[Trevor Sinclair]

Yeh have been following this thru AAP and some of the good and well informed posts here. Does anybody recall how much a 747 tyre costs? My net searches have been unsuccessful.

[Malcolm Parker]

On a 747-400 aircraft the size of the tyres are as follows
Nose gear tyres are 49 x 17
Main Gear tyres are 49 x 19

Current prices per tyre (only) are between 3500USD to 4500USD. However I did find a pricing guide from 2005 as per below it Indicates a nose Gear tyre is approx $3000USD and a Main gear tyre is approx $3300USD

http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/pricelist905.pdf

So inflation probably accounts for that increase.

Hope that helps.

[David Ramsay]

So inflation probably accounts for that increase.

Problem was actually lack of inflation. ;)

[Adam P.]

*groan*

[Tim Bowrey]

Gday Shameel,

Wunala was parked in the hanger opposite gates 1 and 2 in the Qantas Domestic Terminal all of yesterday afternoon/night heavily surrounded by people and machines:P I got some nice photos of her last night in the hanger which i was post as soon as i get them on my computer.

Tim

[Tim Bowrey]

As everyone im sure is aware how hard it is to take a nice photo at night without a tri-pod i was able to get a nice one of Wunala Dreaming in the hanger last night(Thurs) and luckily i caught Yananyi Dreaming next to it which made for a very Aussie photo.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/Marlb0ro/Tims%20Stuff/oejvxb.jpg

Enjoy!

-I have been told Wunala is on tow to an Int'l gate perhaps to depart either this afternoon to LAX as QF11 or somewhere else?

Tim

[Sarah C]

OEJ departed as the QF 11 about an hour ago - should be back as the QF12 possibly on Sunday morning

[Trevor Sinclair]

On a 747-400 aircraft the size of the tyres are as follows
Nose gear tyres are 49 x 17
Main Gear tyres are 49 x 19

Current prices per tyre (only) are between 3500USD to 4500USD. However I did find a pricing guide from 2005 as per below it Indicates a nose Gear tyre is approx $3000USD and a Main gear tyre is approx $3300USD

http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/pricelist905.pdf

So inflation probably accounts for that increase.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Malcolm, appreciated!

[Bill S]

On a 747-400 aircraft the size of the tyres are as follows
Nose gear tyres are 49 x 17
Main Gear tyres are 49 x 19

Current prices per tyre (only) are between 3500USD to 4500USD. However I did find a pricing guide from 2005 as per below it Indicates a nose Gear tyre is approx $3000USD and a Main gear tyre is approx $3300USD

http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/pricelist905.pdf

So inflation probably accounts for that increase.

Hope that helps.


That's the new price, but don't forget that they are retreaded many times.
When I worked for Air Pacific in 98-00 I asked the engineers and they said the retreads were about US$900 each. No doubt that's gone up a fair bit though.

[Adrian B]

Obviously the tyres must be inspected prior to retreading, but is there a limit to the number of times a tyre can be retreaded before being discarded.?

[Adam P.]

If there wasn't a limit would the tyres be thrown out??? I doubt it!

[Brenden S]

6 retreds on Aviation tyres
OEJ was having a A check in hangar 271

[D Chan]

On a 747-400 aircraft the size of the tyres are as follows
Nose gear tyres are 49 x 17
Main Gear tyres are 49 x 19

Current prices per tyre (only) are between 3500USD to 4500USD. However I did find a pricing guide from 2005 as per below it Indicates a nose Gear tyre is approx $3000USD and a Main gear tyre is approx $3300USD

http://www.goodyearaviation.com/img/pdf/pricelist905.pdf

So inflation probably accounts for that increase.

Hope that helps.


Would the tyres be more expensive on the 744ER as the rims are larger than that on the standard 744s (so the sidewall of the tyre would be "thinner")

[Mick M]

Why don't you pop in to Bob Jane and ask 'em! What are we here a tyre retailer ? It really doesn't make much difference. They won't fit on your Micra or whatever you get around in!:eek:

[Brenden S]

Yes the 744ER tyres are more expensive, they are very different to the 744 tyre.

They are larger
Thicker
different tread pattern
more square than round

[Will T]

I arrived in LAX the day after this happened, and naturally crew there with abuzz with discussion of the event, etc. By all accounts it was nothing short of a textbook Rejected Take Off by both pilots and cabin crew.

Random RTO (and go-or-stop decision) events are inserted throughout our recurrent simulator checks, obviously to keep some semblance to the real thing. I was given four of them in my most recent check 2 weeks ago!

As Stephen said, the amount of energy involved in some of these high speed, heavy weight RTOs can be quite enormous, and we would nearly *always* expect to blow at least one tire above 100kts. From the formula for Kinetic Energy (ie. energy of motion) given by:

Kinetic Energy = 0.5 x mass (kg) x velocity-squared (km/hr)

you can see that the energy required to be dissipated by the brakes as heat (with some assistance from thrust reversers and spoilers, when available) increases in proportion to the square of the velocity. Assuming we're taking off at MTOW (397 tonnes) in the 744 (normal at LAX), here are the Kinetic Energies for a few speeds..

Speed ... Energy
80kt (148.6 km/hr) 4348 megajoules
120kt (222 km/hr) 9783 megajoules (125% more energy for only 50% more speed)
146kt (270 km/hr) 14471 megajoules (48% more energy for 22% more speed).. this was our actual V1 decision speed the other night out of LAX.

What does all this mean? It means that the decision to reject or to continue the takeoff becomes more and more critical at higher speeds, due to the enormous energies involved. The increasing risk of wheel fire, or tire or wheel loss obviously needs to be weighed against the severity of the fault or failure requiring the decision to be made. Indeed, in many cases, it is often safer to take an otherwise serviceable and controllable aeroplane into the air and deal with the problem there, before dumping fuel and returning.

For this reason, Boeing has made 80kts a cutover point for RTOs (on the 747-400, anyway). Below 80 kts, the takeoff would normally be aborted for engine failure, any fire or fire warning, system failure, master caution, abnormally slow acceleration, takeoff config warnings, predictive windshear alerts, unusual noise or vibration, or if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly. Above 80kts and prior to V1, the takeoff is generally only aborted for fire/fire warning, engine failure, predictive windshear or if the aircraft becomes unsafe or unable to fly (in the Captain's opinion).

Depending on the airline, the Captain will usually make the decision to either continue or reject the takeoff if a fault develops (this is why he keeps his hands on the thrust levers until V1). If he decides to stop, he calls 'Stopping' and initiates the manoeuvre by closing the thrust levers. This immediately activates the autobrakes in 'RTO' mode, and effectively dumps the full 3000psi of hydraulic pressure squarely onto the 16 wheel brakes (the nosewheel is obviously unbraked). The resulting deceleration can only be described as phenomenal, according to those who've done it! Obviously reversers and spoilers are also deployed, which take some (but only a little) load off the brakes.

Interestingly, one of the most difficult RTO manoeuvres is the very low speed (<30-40kt), max thrust (for heavy weight) abort, where there can be a very significant thrust asymmetry with little or no rudder authority to counteract it, due to the low airspeed. In this scenario, closing the thrust levers immediately (and therefore stopping the thrust asymmetry) becomes paramount - being even slightly slow on this will almost surely end you up in the grass on the side of the runway! The rudder pedals provide only limited (7 degrees) nosewheel steering, and this is really all one has at their disposal under these circumstances, initially at least.

It's a lengthy subject, but I hope this provides some insight!

[Nicholas Togias]

Hey,

Is maximum manual braking more effective then RTO braking in the 747?

[Will T]

Nicholas,
On the 744, RTO provides maximum braking effort, as does full manual brake application.

In the case of the autobrake settings available for landing, 'Max Auto' produces less braking than full manual brake application.

[Bill S]

Hey,

Is maximum manual braking more effective then RTO braking in the 747?


No.



Nicholas,
RTO provides maximum braking effort, as does full manual brake application.

In the case of the autobrake settings available for landing, 'Max Auto' produces less braking than full manual brake application.

FWIW not in a 747 Classic - Max autobrake pumps the full 3,000psi into the braking system and that's the maximum it'll provide. The pilot may be able to equal that, but not exceed it.


BTW Will, I quit Qantas mid February.

[Will T]

Interesting, Bill! It's been a while since I was in a Classic sim, but what are the available autobrake settings for landing again?

On the 744, I've never seen 'MAX AUTO' used, although Autobrakes 4 is quite often selected for short runways (eg. MEL 27, SYD 07/25) or when one's trying to make a given taxiway (often SIN 20R). It's certainly not an extreme braking effort, but I'd imagine that 'Max' would be more noticeable :)

And as you say, in the case of RTO braking, it's very difficult to apply enough pedal braking to trip it off.

Sad to hear you're no longer doing QF stuff. Greener pastures? Or the good life (retirement)?

[Bill S]

On the Classic there's only off - low - medium - maximum.

I've got mortgages to pay, so I'm in the process of getting another job. I don't want to, but I have to ... :(

[Nicholas Togias]

Thanks guys

Best of luck with the future Bill!

[Daniel W]

From the CASA Service Difficulty report:

"Boeing 747-438 Stabiliser position transmitter faulty
LH stabiliser position transmitter faulty. Warning during takeoff caused takeoff to be rejected. No. 1, No. 3 and No. 5 tyre fusible plugs blown and tyres deflated. Investigation continuing."