34R Not Available - QF Blows tyres

[Matt D]

ATIS ATIS YSSY F 131036
APCH: EXP VISUAL APCH
RWY: 34L
+ OPR INFO: RWY 34R NOT AVBL DUE DISABLED ACFT CONTACT 127.6 FOR START CLEARANCE
WND: 290/8
VIS: 10KM
CLD: FEW 2500 FEW 3500
+ TMP: 16
QNH: 1023

Apparently due to plugs blown after an RTO on a QF 737. Anyone know if the RTO was anything other than something minor?

[Philip Argy]

An RTO that leaves a disabled a/c blocking RWY 34R for a prolonged period doesn't sound minor to me. If fuse plugs melted from heavy braking heat, would the deflated tyres prevent the a/c from being towed? As I understand it the normal hold off period is only 5 to 10 mins before passsengers can be evacuated, but 34R was unavailable for the best part of 45 minutes.

It will be interesting to read the ATSB report.

[Kieran Wells]

This might be to the fact that QF 883 SYdney - Canberra blew 2 tyres on take off this evening - just heard on 2ue 11pm news. No one injured. Now in the hands of air safety transport beaurau.

[Andrew C]

Who didn't miss it??? any comments?

Tyres blow as Qantas pilots abort take-off

May 14, 2008 - 7:49AM

Nearly 100 passengers on a Qantas flight from Sydney Airport endured tense moments last night when pilots aborted their take-off, resulting in two tyres being blown.

A Qantas spokeswoman said the airline was investigating the reason the take-off was abandoned at about 6pm last night.

The 737 aircraft was operating as flight QF805 from Sydney to Canberra when the mishap occurred.

"Flight crew operated in accordance with their training at all times," the spokeswoman said.

"All 92 passengers were accommodated on later flights."

The matter has been reported to the Air Transport Safety Bureau.

Australian and International Pilots Association general manager Peter Somerville said he was unaware of why the pilots elected to abandon the take-off.

He said the incident had left the plane stranded on the runway for some time.

"I heard that it was parked on one of the taxi ways because of the significant difficulties," he said.

[Lukas M]

Boeing 737-400 , starting to become a regular occurance

[Steve S... 2]

Hi,

Does anyone know the reg'n of the 734 involved?

Thanks,

Steve S.

[Kurt A]

I'm led to beleive it was a 737-800.

[Bernie P]

I'm led to beleive it was a 737-800.

Footage on CH9, looks as though it is a 737-800, and that the QF titels are in the new font... So does this mean that it is a recently delivered aircraft??

[Edward Terry]

You're all wrong.

The 747-800 jet's flight from Sydney to Canberra was aborted after the tyres blew as it began take-off about 6pm. from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23695541-23349,00.html

A 747 using 34R, that I would like to see!

[Bernie P]

A 747 using 34R, that I would like to see!

Happened last week with FJ (Air Pacific?? :o )... Didn't Sarah??

[Michael Mak]

You're all wrong.

from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23695541-23349,00.html

A 747 using 34R, that I would like to see!

Especially when its a -800 ;)

[Andrew C]

I would like to see the 747-800. Not one that has passed me lately.

[Brenden S]

VYE was the aircraft in question, now located at the maint base.

[Kim F]

An "eye witless" account on the Channel 10 news tonight who "saw" the whole thing.........said "as the plane came into land" !!!!:)

[Philip Argy]

Found these pics of what happens when fuse plugs were wrongly installed on an A340-600 and it had an RTO:
http://www.aviationpics.de/test/a346/page_01.htm

[Sarah C]

An "eye witless" account on the Channel 10 news tonight who "saw" the whole thing.........said "as the plane came into land" !!!!:)

:p You can only laugh..........and 9 jumped to the conclusion that this incident and the 747 at LAX were related

[Chris Tully]

Nothing like watching the A340 footage available here. (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hRzWp67PIMw&feature=related)

[Philip Argy]

Nothing like watching the A340 footage available here. (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hRzWp67PIMw&feature=related)

Yes - thanks, Chris. That's the footage I'd been looking for. The 777 RTO proving run that follows it is more impressive - they destroyed all 12 main gear wheels at a cost of some US$750K.

[David M]

A 747 using 34R, that I would like to see!

Best I could do for you Ed.....


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/Boeing-747-438/0260864/L/

David.M.

[Philip Argy]

Not much room left for RTO runoff! (I realise no RTO post rotation - but judging from the photo, there would not have been enough room if RTO had occurred just before V1).

[Ken K]

That's what the balanced field requirement is for. ;)

[Mick F]

I'm not an expert on heavy jet operations Phillip, so excuse me if I'm feeding you rubbish, however because of the short runway, V1 would have been earlier than usual to permit a safe RTO, ;). V1 is always different, because it is based on several things such as the runway length, weights, atmospheric conditions, etc. etc.

Mick

[Philip Argy]

Thanks, Mick - appreciate the explanation. Great thing about this Board is how there's usually someone who knows stuff others don't so we can all learn from each other.

[Will T]

Philip,

Mike's got it in one.

To simplify a fairly complex subject:

The aeroplane needs to be able to:

- accelerate, suffer an engine failure immediately prior to V1 (the decision speed) and then stop on the remaining runway
- accelerate with all engines to V1, then stop on the remaining runway
- accelerate, suffer an engine failure immediately prior to V1, continue to accelerate past V1 with an engine failed, and reach 35' above the end of the takeoff distance available

among other things.


As such, the V1 speed is adjusted according to aircraft weight, ambient conditions, and of course runway length. If the runway length available is such that the aircraft won't be able to meet one of the above criteria, the weight needs to be reduced until it does.

Whenever the runway is 'WET' (as given on the ATIS, for example), a further reduction in V1 and/or weight is usually applied. On the 744, we don't apply a weight penalty, but reduce our V1 by 10kts. This means that we have to make a decision to STOP/GO earlier in the takeoff roll, and takes account of the fact that a wet runway requires more stopping distance than a dry runway. In other words, the reduced V1 'biases' the takeoff towards the 'GO' case.

There's a speed, called Vmcg (Minimum Control - Ground), which V1 cannot go below. Below Vmcg, there is insufficient rudder force available (due to the lower airspeed) to counteract the assymetry caused by a critical engine failure, and so it is obviously unsafe to continue a takeoff under those circumstances, even though the difference between V1 and Vmcg may only be quite small. Whenever the theoretical V1 is less than Vmcg, we make V1 = Vmcg, which effectively biases the takeoff towards the 'STOP' case.

It's complex stuff, and all this before we even get into Balanced Fields :)

Will

[Philip Argy]

I'm learning fast - thanks, Will!

So, looking again at David's photo (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qanta...438/0260864/L/), rotation has apparently been delayed until the last few metres of runway, which would mean that the takeoff roll went well beyond V1 as you've explained things. Doesn't that create a risk of something going wrong after V1 that would be avoided if rotation occurred as soon as possible after V1?

Or is 34R so short that rotation with a 744 really can't occur before the last few metres of runway?

[Nathan Long]

Philip,

Don't forget that because of the angle and the use of a long focal length lens, the length of available runway appears to be less than it really is. See this document (page 16) about how far the Fixed Distance Marking must be from the threshold:

http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/139/139m08.pdf

In this case, there appears to be at least 300m of runway remaining prior to the threshold.

[Philip Argy]

I'm going right out on a limb here wondering aloud if it really is YSSY RWY 34R (the photo shows grass where white concrete should be?) or else to suggest that 34R is non-compliant (the chevrons aren't yellow as 8.3.2.2 appears to prescribe!).

Can we use the runway edge lights to calibrate the distance? On the western edge of the runway I count 5 edge lights after the final taxiway - does anyone know what their spacing is? That presumably would give us an accurate measure of how much runway was really left?

[Grant Smith]

I'm going right out on a limb here wondering aloud if it really is YSSY RWY 34R (the photo shows grass where white concrete should be?)

:eek:

[Nathan Long]

1. Yes, it really is YSSY 34R.

2. As for it's official compliance, I am not in a position to say, but there are yellow chevrons in the bottom left hand corner marking the start of the runway (the angle of the shot makes them appear as straight lines). 16L appears to be marked as per the requirements for a permanently displaced threshold (section 8.3.9). This part of the runway cannot be used for landing on 16L, but can be used for takeoff on 16L (and I assume take-off on 34R). As for the runway light spacing, Nigel may (should?) know the exact distance but it would be somewhere between 55 and 60m.

[Nigel C]

60 metres between runway edge lights is the distance used for RVR's at YSSY.

As for the chevrons layout, check here http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=-33.950391,151.188923&spn=0.004076,0.007253&t=h&z=17

Cheers

[Philip Argy]

OK - I'm satisfied now - the lights are the clincher - just shows how deceptive the long focal length and the perspective can be, and makes the photo even greater than I first thought! :o

[Stephen Brown]

I'm going right out on a limb here wondering aloud if it really is YSSY RWY 34R

Your questioning the integrity of the photographer who just so happens to frequent this board?

I've seen some dumber things done.......But not many.

[Philip Argy]

Not in the slightest, Stephen - just expressing incredulity about the extent of the optical illusion that appeared to make the white concrete disappear. Had you included the rest of my sentence that would have been fairer: "(the photo shows grass where white concrete should be?)".

[David M]

So, looking again at David's photo (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qanta...438/0260864/L/),

I'll take the kudos, but it ain't my photo in a long shot.

Would the real Craig Murray please stand up!!

David M.