FLG3285 Blown Tire, Comes Back Home after fuel burn

SteveCostello

My member is well-known.
So, Pinnacle FLG3285 (BOS -> MCI, CRJ900) blows two right mains on takeoff from BOS (pilot thought it was front, but ground crew confirmed it was both right mains based on the amount and location of rubber found on the runway). Flies around to burn fuel and lands at JFK. I ask this truly out of naïveté... why not just go ahead and go to your destination? I understand the consequences of blown tires on landing, but why should that impact the actual flight itself? Honest question. I'm led to believe that perhaps they did not retract the landing gear after takeoff. Is that also a standard procedure after a blown tire?

Here's the FlightAware track: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FLG3285/history/20120813/2232Z/KBOS/KMCI

If you have a LiveATC account, someone assembled ALL of the radio transmissions, from clear to takeoff at BOS to officially declaring emergency on approach, and landing at JFK, including all frequency changes. Whoever did this put a ton of work into it: http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/flg3285-bursts-tire-on-takeoff-diverts-to-jfk/
 

bronco21016

I know H.T.M.L. (How To Meet Ladies)
I can't say for sure but I would imagine the QRH says not to retract the gear which makes it difficult to go to the destination if it's a longer leg.

Even if the checklist doesn't say to leave it down I don't think I'd be too crazy about retracting potentially damaged landing gear and then have it not come down.
 

Dugie8

Well-Known Member
Basic rule of thumb. If you suspect the gear is damaged or some how malfunctioned and it is in the down and locked position, leave the gear alone. Better to have it in the safe position than get it stuck either up or halfway up (or down).

All of these of course takes second fiddle to whatever the QRH, common sense and SOPs may say for the given situation.
 

dasleben

That's just, like, your opinion, man
Depends on the aircraft. If there is no damage, no leaks, failures, etc. after a blown tire on takeoff, it's best to continue on and, with company coordination, continue to destination. Can't speak for a CRJ, but there's a good chance that you won't know about the blown tire(s) until ATC tells you, and the gear is already up in the wells anyway. Best to continue to destination and burn fuel normally, rather than land overweight or dump (if so equipped).

Case in point, these guys continued to Brazil:

 

Screaming_Emu

Dogsheep
Basic rule of thumb. If you suspect the gear is damaged or some how malfunctioned and it is in the down and locked position, leave the gear alone. Better to have it in the safe position than get it stuck either up or halfway up (or down).

All of these of course takes second fiddle to whatever the QRH, common sense and SOPs may say for the given situation.
I learned that the difficult way. Got a nosewheel steering caution message at 90kts, of course we continued. After takeoff we retracted the gear like usual (not thinking). Complied with the QRH which was basically turn it off, turn it on, and the message went away. Checked with the company and they said continue. Went to drop the gear at our destination and the nosegear said "oh hell no!" Thankfully we were able to freefall it down, but we still didn't have NWS on touchdown.

According to the mechanic that met us, if the plane doesn't know if the gear is centered or not, it won't extend it to prevent damage to the aircraft. Sounds stupid to me, because landing without a nosegear probably would cause MORE damage. But I'm not a canadian engineer.
 

Autothrust Blue

"I'll take your case."
According to the mechanic that met us, if the plane doesn't know if the gear is centered or not, it won't extend it to prevent damage to the aircraft. Sounds stupid to me, because landing without a nosegear probably would cause MORE damage. But I'm not a canadian engineer.
:confused::eek:

The immortal words of Luke Skywalker suddenly come to mind...
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
I don't think I'd take a long flight like that with a damaged tire, even if I had the gear retracted. What if you get another emergency along the way that forces you to divert and the nearest "suitable" field is a short runway. Not what you want to be trying to land on with a damaged gear.
 

SteveC

Really?
Staff member
A couple of weeks ago I heard a United flight returning to O'Hare. Said something about 7 of 9 lavs busted and they weren't about to do a crossing like that. :ooh:
 

Cptnchia

Dissatisfied Customer
They only continued on to Brazil after the company decided not to have them land short in ATL. Some tires and a mechanic were put on the ATL-GRU flight and met them there. The crew had no clue what happened until the company told them.
 

dasleben

That's just, like, your opinion, man
They only continued on to Brazil after the company decided not to have them land short in ATL. Some tires and a mechanic were put on the ATL-GRU flight and met them there. The crew had no clue what happened until the company told them.
Yeah, we usually have a flight mechanic onboard, and an extra tire or two in the fly away kit.
 

Autothrust Blue

"I'll take your case."
I don't think I'd take a long flight like that with a damaged tire, even if I had the gear retracted. What if you get another emergency along the way that forces you to divert and the nearest "suitable" field is a short runway. Not what you want to be trying to land on with a damaged gear.
That would tend to not make that airport suitable then, no?
 

dasleben

That's just, like, your opinion, man
For oceanic flying, our typical ETOPS alternates have more than enough runway to accomodate a couple blown tires. We have 8 sets of tires/brakes, so 1 or 2 being blown isn't much of a concern, even for typical enroute alternates with suitable emergency equipment present. I definitely wouldn't be passing 1-2 hours worth of alternates over a blown tire or two.

I should be clear that this all would be discussed with the company after departure. If they'd like you to air return or land short somewhere else for maintenance, then that's the game plan as long as it's safe.
 

DL31082

Well-Known Member
Pure guess here but maintenance control probably wanted them to go to JFK because we have maintenance there. Just a guess.
 

thevideographer

Well-Known Member
Don't the FARs say something like "land at the closest practical airport"? I suppose you could say that the destination is practical though.
 

Autothrust Blue

"I'll take your case."
For us there are two options. Nearest suitable airport vs. land immediately at the nearest suitable.
the regulation concerning power plant failure reads something to the effect of "land at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing may be made.

The Brasilia QRH does have things that say "land immediately" at the nearest suitable airport, but it's fire/airplane will stop flying stuff.

This post is brought to you by Beta. Beta: chicks dig it.
 

MercFE

Well-Known Member
Had a flight where we blew all four right side main mounts during a touch and go. No one on the aircraft knew anything until the wheels were up and we were turning crosswind. Tower called us up to tell us we were trailing smoke from the right side.

Put the gear down in case of a wheel well fire and prepared for an emergency return. Smoke cleared by base turn, did low approach so tower could confirm tires gone.

Once the gear was down and locked, stiff legged it back to where we could get major maintenance completed. Gave us time to discuss the landing, too.

Don't see any reason to suck the gear up and continue on. But then again, I'm not in the career of turning a profit.
 
Top