captainstefan From United States of America, joined May 2007, 338 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4097 times:
I haven't heard too many details, but apparently yesterday (7/28), Eva Air Cargo 747-400SF B-16407 rejected a takeoff from runway 27R/9L (not sure which one) reportedly at the decision speed, and exited the runway with a total of 9 blown tires. It sat on taxiway M until this morning when Delta's SuperTug came and towed it to the TOC, where it now sits being serviced. Tires apparently have to be flown in, as a couple of the replacements had stickers indicating an origin of JFK. Does anybody have any better details on the event and repair, or ideas on when it may leave?
MSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6242 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3864 times:
Quoting captainstefan (Thread starter): Does anybody have any better details on the event and repair, or ideas on when it may leave?
I saw part of the RTO as it happened from the ramp. Looked like his nose gear was just starting to lift off the ground when it abruptly went back down. Then a huge trail of smoke from the max braking appeared, followed by the distinct sound of 4 thrust reversers. He was really hauling the mail and I was hoping that he wouldn't overrun. Didn't see him again until later that evening, parked on the taxiway with all lights off. Figured they'd call DL for the SuperTug at some point.
Dalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2366 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 1): For those of us who are technically challenged, what is the importance of the JFK stickers?
Nothing technical, just where the wheels came from. I doubt they have many or any spare wheel assemblies in ATL. And no they would not just get some from DL. Wheel assemblies tend not to be shared between airlines. Other rotable parts get sold or loaned between airlines all the time but not wheels. An airline would usually keep a built up assembly or two in a station that they have a lot of flights, especially overseas. Even if they don't have their own mechanics the company that does their on call contract work would store them. So EVA is scrambling to round up nine wheels from every station they have a few stashed at in North America.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2312 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3550 times:
According to procedure there are only three acceptable reasons for RTOing above 80 knots. Sounds like this guy could have been at or above V1 if he was already rotating.
They are:
* Engine Failure
* Any kind of fire
* If in the captain's judgement, the airplane in incapable of safe flight
There is only one justifiable reason to RTO above V1:
* If in the captain's judgement, the airplane in incapable of safe flight
You don't RTO above 80 knots - and certainly not at rotation - for a blown tire, flight deck window flying open, bird strike, system failure (e.g. electric generator failure), unusual vibration or anything else other than state above.
As noted by one poster, he seriously worried whether the airplane was going to overrun the end of the runway. Playing arm chair pilot (and following Boeing policy), the only justification to have RTOed at that point was a very significant problem in which the captain seriously doubted the ability of the airplane to get in the air and fly back around for an emergency landing. Anything else was a very bad decision that could have had catastrophic results if the airplane had overrun the end of the runway.
captainstefan From United States of America, joined May 2007, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 3): Other rotable parts get sold or loaned between airlines all the time but not wheels.
Of note, scrawled onto some of the tires was "EVA LOAN UNSERVICABLE" - Make of that what you will.
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 4): You don't RTO above 80 knots - and certainly not at rotation - for a blown tire, flight deck window flying open, bird strike, system failure (e.g. electric generator failure), unusual vibration or anything else other than state above.
Right on, I believe a DL 767 last year RTO'd improperly for a flight deck window opening.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3337 times:
Chances are he aborted for something other than blown tires. The tires probibly blew because of the RTO, not the cause of it.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2312 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3284 times:
Quoting captainstefan (Reply 5): Right on, I believe a DL 767 last year RTO'd improperly for a flight deck window opening.
Yeah, and a UA 763 RTO-ed at over a 100 knots at EZE several years ago because the Captain mistakenly thought the Autothrottle didn't go into the HOLD mode at 80 knots. What a dumb ****. Boeing guidance specifically says no problem if the mode doesn't go to HOLD as long as there are no other anomalies. And even if there are, you disconnect the Autothrottle and control thrust manually and continue the takeoff.
Boeing had put out a training video demonstrating a flight deck window coming open at high speed. Ray, the 737 Chief Pilot, clearly demonstrates how to continue the takeoff and shut the window once getting to a safe altitude.
* Engine Failure
* Any kind of fire
* If in the captain's judgement, the airplane in incapable of safe flight
So, if Captain was following SOPs, all tire blowouts would've been the result of the RTO, not vice versa. Thanks for your input.
Correct. The tires have fuse plugs in them so at least they can deflate under control rather than exploding. Think of how much energy is absorbed by the tires and brakes in stopping a 744 from high speed in a few thousand feet. The RTO autobrake activation is something that has to be felt to be believed. 3000 pounds/square inch of hydraulic pressure to the brakes, putting them at their maximum possible capability.
At the very least, an inappropriate high speed RTO results in blown tires, brakes on fire, and possibly landing gear axle damage. At worse, he goes off the end of the runway with catastrophic results.
Get the airplane in the air to a safe altitude and then deal with the emergency. If necessary they can come right back around and land. High Speed RTOs are for very serious situations when the airplane wouldn't be capable of flying safely long enough to return to the airport. Then you'd better hope everything goes to plan and you get stopped in time.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3202 times:
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 7): Yeah, and a UA 763 RTO-ed at over a 100 knots at EZE several years ago because the Captain mistakenly thought the Autothrottle didn't go into the HOLD mode at 80 knots. What a dumb ****.
You're seriously going to call a Captain dirty names because he rejected a takeoff when he would have otherwise been OK? I think that says more about you than it does the CA. Hindsight is 20/20, especially when you're not a pilot, sitting behind a desk in a comfortable office chair Monday-morning quarterbacking a perfectly "legal" decision.
We know all about the potential pitfalls of high-speed rejects. We also know, more importantly, that the airplane is certified to perform them. I haven't met a single pilot that enjoys a RTO, but I also haven't met one that would take one into the air if he had any doubt that the airplane could safely fly. I also guarantee you that the LAST thing on my mind during my decision to make a high-speed reject is some toasted brakes and blown tires.
I'm sure you're correct on Boeing's guidance...but that may not have played into the CA's decision on the reject. He may never even have been aware of it. Maybe he couldn't/didn't figure out soon enough that the autothrottles had set the proper takeoff thrust. Maybe it's an issue for the training department to resolve, or maybe his systems knowledge wasn't sufficient or he didn't have enough time to process what was happening so he went with the (perfectly legitimate) option to abort. If he had aborted past V1, then yes, I would agree that it was inexcusably poor judgement. But he didn't.
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 4):
According to procedure there are only three acceptable reasons for RTOing above 80 knots. Sounds like this guy could have been at or above V1 if he was already rotating.
Caveats:
1) Eyewitness reports are often incorrect
2) The deck angle of numerous transport-category airplanes changes noticeably as the aircraft accelerates during the takeoff roll. It may have appeared that the nose gear had left the runway (and in fact it may well have) without any effort of the PF to initiate rotation, and this very well could have happened below V1. When we stop forward acceleration and "slam on the brakes" during the reject, the nose strut will compress.
Also the fact that the airplane stopped on the runway is a pretty big clue that the takeoff was aborted prior to V1.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 9, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3188 times:
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 7): High Speed RTOs are for very serious situations when the airplane wouldn't be capable of flying safely long enough to return to the airport.
Yes, and a captain has barely a couple seconds to make that decision - always with only partial information.
We can look at events in hindsight like the Kalitta overrun at Brussels - but the reality is that captain though it was certain the plane would not fly and kill a lot of innocent people if he tried to takeoff. So he destroyed an airplane that we can now see could have flown and returned for an emergency landing.
And I don't criticize his decision at all.
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 8): the fact that the airplane stopped on the runway is a pretty big clue that the takeoff was aborted prior to V1.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2312 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 8): You're seriously going to call a Captain dirty names because he rejected a takeoff when he would have otherwise been OK? I think that says more about you than it does the CA. Hindsight is 20/20, especially when you're not a pilot, sitting behind a desk in a comfortable office chair Monday-morning quarterbacking a perfectly "legal" decision.
Boeing engineering later could find no evidence that HLD wasn't even annunciated on the Flight Mode Annunciation, nor that the thrust level was anything other than the correct takeoff thrust and airplane acceleration was normal. It was an improper and dangerous RTO done for very very invalid reasons. I stand behind my statements.
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 8): Also the fact that the airplane stopped on the runway is a pretty big clue that the takeoff was aborted prior to V1.
Not necessarily. And all it takes is one minor mishap as far as braking, speedbrakes or thrust reverse usage and off they go off the end.
cbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1508 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2944 times:
Just because the nose lifts off the ground, does not mean they were at Vr. Improper trim, flap settings, or a shift in cargo could cause the nose of the aircraft to rotate prematurely. Either scenario would warrant a high speed abort. Let's wait for more information before we throw these guys under the bus.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2684 times:
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
Boeing engineering later could find no evidence that HLD wasn't even annunciated on the Flight Mode Annunciation, nor that the thrust level was anything other than the correct takeoff thrust and airplane acceleration was normal. It was an improper and dangerous RTO done for very very invalid reasons. I stand behind my statements.
But the airplane and flight crew were certified to do it. No captain worth his salt would take an airplane into the air if he had doubts about its ability to SAFELY continue flight. As an airline pilot who makes these command decisions multiple times every day, not a (purported) engineer with all the time in the world to analyze data AFTER the flight was complete, I stand behind my statements.
You failed to address where I also mentioned it may be an issue for the training department. Maybe they need to better address the system to prevent unnecessary RTOs in the future.
Bottom line: It's quite crass and cocky of you to call the guy names for something you don't fully understand. Hindsight is 20/20, and it appears yours is even better than that.
I said "a pretty big clue." Both the airplane and flight crew were certifiably capable of it.
Quoting cbphoto (Reply 11): Just because the nose lifts off the ground, does not mean they were at Vr. Improper trim, flap settings, or a shift in cargo could cause the nose of the aircraft to rotate prematurely. Either scenario would warrant a high speed abort. Let's wait for more information before we throw these guys under the bus.
Good and valid points, although I sure hope you're wrong (given the implications)...
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2071 times:
Quoting notdownnlocked (Reply 19): Aircraft began uncommanded roll to the left at 140kts.
yah, if true, that'd have me planning my crash from 0 altitude rather than trying to takeoff and see whats up. Has to be the worst place to be, not quite sure if you have any runway left to get stopped, but yet a pretty solid idea that taking off is worse.
barney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 749 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2058 times:
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10): Boeing engineering later could find no evidence that HLD wasn't even annunciated on the Flight Mode Annunciation, nor that the thrust level was anything other than the correct takeoff thrust and airplane acceleration was normal. It was an improper and dangerous RTO done for very very invalid reasons. I stand behind my statements.
Spoken like a true engineer.
15,000 hours in Boeings says you're missing the larger picture.
charliecossie From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 467 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 3): Wheel assemblies tend not to be shared between airlines. Other rotable parts get sold or loaned between airlines all the time but not wheels.
Airlines all over the world pool wheels with each other.
Delta doesn't.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 338 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 467 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
