AA767 at Rio de Janeiro Blows Tires, Haters-Gonna-Hates to Gate

Polar742 said:
While I agree with all of your technical assessments, Brazil is one of the countries I WOULDN'T ever stop on a runway and wait.

Depending on other factors, I might even taxi closer to the gate in this situation.

Certain countries I have operated to, I would give the crew a lot more leeway as to the process between weighing risks of moving the aircraft under distress versus stopping and awaiting emergency equipment.

In the US, the choice is obvious. There are plenty of other countries around the world where the same applies. However, Brazil isn't one IMO.
Click to expand...

Curiously, what is it about Brazil? Only because I don't know. No ground support service, no way to move pax from the aircraft, no way to tow the aircraft, etc? Competence issues regarding the above? Like I said, I could see clearing the runway at worst, vs stopping on the runway. But there'd have to be some severely exigent circumstances to take this level of risk (of taxiing all the way to the gate), not only of more damage to other landing gear, wheel well or underwing components, but of the aforementioned fire hazard. I'm just not familiar with the local area ops there to know what those circumstances might be.

Am just mystified because this isn't something normally seen of transport-category or airlines aircraft doing. Highly unusual, and not the normal "most conservative response" we see from 121 operations.. The thought process behind it would be interesting.
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
Curiously, what is it about Brazil? Only because I don't know. No ground support service, no way to move pax from the aircraft, no way to tow the aircraft, etc? Competence issues regarding the above? Like I said, I could see clearing the runway at worst, vs stopping on the runway. But there'd have to be some severely exigent circumstances to take this level of risk, not only of more damage to other landing gear, wheel well or underwing components, but of the aforementioned fire hazard. I'm just not familiar with the local area ops there to know what those circumstances might be.
Click to expand...

Well, there's "the right way" and, sometimes, "the Brazil way". :)
 
Derg said:
Well, there's "the right way" and, sometimes, "the Brazil way". :)
Click to expand...

Is this covered in a company SOP or something, specific to Brazil (or other OCONUS locations)?

I'm honestly trying to learn something from this from a flight safety and CFR perspective as well as a piloting one. Goes against everything I've ever learned from either of the three perspectives, and seems to go against the normal conservative 121 way of doing business (a way of business which I agree with, when hauling pax).
 
MikeD said:
Curiously, what is it about Brazil? Only because I don't know. No ground support service, no way to move pax from the aircraft, no way to tow the aircraft, etc? Competence issues regarding the above? Like I said, I could see clearing the runway at worst, vs stopping on the runway. But there'd have to be some severely exigent circumstances to take this level of risk, not only of more damage to other landing gear, wheel well or underwing components, but of the aforementioned fire hazard. I'm just not familiar with the local area ops there to know what those circumstances might be.

Am just mystified because this isn't something normally seen of transport-category or airlines aircraft doing. Highly unusual, and not the normal "most conservative response" we see from 121 operations.. The thought process behind it would be interesting.
Click to expand...

I doubt aircraft support issues would be my main issue. Mainly getting off of a runway to avoid being landed on.

Obviously, if it's a situation where we need to evacuate, stop, set the brake and commence evacuation.

If the aircraft is in a situation where we don't need to immediately evacuate and would be sitting on a runway for a couple minutes or more, especially in a rush hour or lower wx, I'd vacate the runway to decrease an operational error by ATC.

Offhand, I can't remember if Brazil is one of the offenders, but some countries will speak their local language unless a foreign carrier requires them to speak English. In that case, it's English to us and local language to everyone else.

Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.
 
MikeD said:
Is this covered in a company SOP or something, specific to Brazil (or other OCONUS locations)?

I'm honestly trying to learn something from this from a flight safety and CFR perspective as well as a piloting one. Goes against everything I've ever learned from either of the three perspectives, and seems to go against the normal conservative 121 way of doing business (a way of business which I agree with, when hauling pax).
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. Normally not the way we'd prefer to handle it, but this is where the experience and judgement comes in to decide if you're in one of those spots to move the jet.

It's not just Brazil, lots of developing countries.
 
Polar742 said:
While I agree with all of your technical assessments, Brazil is one of the countries I WOULDN'T ever stop on a runway and wait.

Depending on other factors, I might even taxi closer to the gate in this situation.

Certain countries I have operated to, I would give the crew a lot more leeway as to the process between weighing risks of moving the aircraft under distress versus stopping and awaiting emergency equipment.

In the US, the choice is obvious. There are plenty of other countries around the world where the same applies. However, Brazil isn't one IMO.
Click to expand...

thinking like that we might need to revoke your next assignment.

I can see clearing the runway, but nothing more.
 
Jimflyfast said:
thinking like that we might need to revoke your next assignment.

I can see clearing the runway, but nothing more.
Click to expand...

Again, dependent on the airport. Built for widebodies, absolutely clear and stop.

As you know some of the parallels at some places aren't built for a widebody landing and on a parallel. I've never been to Rio, but I'd wager you'd be right in that case.
 
Polar742 said:
Again, dependent on the airport. Built for widebodies, absolutely clear and stop.

As you know some of the parallels at some places aren't built for a widebody landing and on a parallel. I've never been to Rio, but I'd wager you'd be right in that case.
Click to expand...
Which part of clear the runway was confusing? Clear as required and nothing more.
 
Doh!

image.jpg
image.jpg
 
Polar742 said:
I doubt aircraft support issues would be my main issue. Mainly getting off of a runway to avoid being landed on.

Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...

Jimflyfast said:
I can see clearing the runway, but nothing more.
Click to expand...

Agree with both of you. Clearing the runway I can see for the ATC reason Martin mentions, as well as it being not much of an effort or time problem to just be out of the way. Stopping on the runway if felt that's safe is best practice as well, pending one feels safe to do so. No issues there.

It's the taxiing all the way to the gate part that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. As well as having trouble believing the crew wouldn't be aware of a problem on the right side of the aircraft of that magnitude. Everything from cockpit indications/sensors (if available), to just taxiing problems with the power required, the aircraft listing to that side, etc. That said, I can't see the rationale for knowingly making a full taxi to the gate, and would be interested to know the story on that, either way.

Would love to know if ATC or other aircraft saw or said anything to the crew.

ARFF-wise, I would hope that tower would've seen this and dispatched them. They probably would've gotten to the aircraft maybe midway through its taxiback. If it were me, seeing what was in the video, I know i'd be trying to get the crew to to stop the aircraft; clearly seeing a good amount of physical damage, grounding metal, an overheat occurring with the smoke, and the incipient stages of a brake/wheel fire coming together or an ignition of hydraulic fluid mist from damaged lines that may not be seen and are spraying onto brake/wheel parts that are smoking already......not an easy fire to fight with combustible metals. Now everything that goes along with a fire would occur: wheel well inpingement, fuel cell damage from metal parts igniting/exploding, partial to full involvement of the aircraft, and a pax evacuation.....likely from only one side of the aircraft. Not to mention a structural fire potential if this happens at the gate. As ARFF/CFR, I'd prefer to keep an airplane in this condition away from all gates. Nothing good comes from this except causing the flightcrew a heck of alot of work, the ARFF crews a heck of alot of work, and putting pax at unnecessary risk through evac and related injuries, not to mention damaging an airplane far beyond what it already was.

So I'm just understanding the risk vs reward here and wondering what would have mitigated all the above or been gained by taking it to the gate, if intentional. Or how the crew wouldn't have known, if unintentional.

Kind of perplexing. More questions than answers thus far.
 
Minuteman said:
Doh!
Click to expand...

All of that underwing (and likely wheelwell) damage may or may not have been the result of just the taxi to the gate, but the taxi to the gate certainly didn't help matters. The damage underneath, had one of those brake/wheel components ignited and exploded, could very well have punctured a fuel cell or hydraulic line, and the resulting conflagration, emergency shutdown, and pax evac, being very high risk. Not good at all.
 
Jimflyfast said:
Which part of clear the runway was confusing? Clear as required and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I think you know me well enough to know my first preference would be to just stop.

Secondarily, just clear the runway and stop.

Way down the list would be to turn down a parallel and stop. But this is more of a Port Hardcore or Equatorial Guinea deal.
 
Jimflyfast said:
port harcourt only has one runway, so not an issue there.;)
Click to expand...

This is true. I'd just want to heat it up enough so we can have a bbq on the wheels waiting for them to jumpstart the fire truck. But isn't 70% N1 a normal taxi power anyway?
 
JetDoc said:
That bogie is finished. Axles in all likelyhood are heat damaged. Hydraulic lines and wiring heat damaged. Look how close the brake torque links are to the ground, more than likely damaged. Your going to have to jack the wing just to get a jack underneath the bogie to change all four tires and brakes. Who knows what you'll find when you get those off. Best case, change tires and brakes and ferry it home. Worst case complete gear change in Brazil..
Click to expand...
My vote is on whole gear change.
 
I'm sure if the Capt knew the extent of the damage he wouldn't have tried to taxi. There would have been a need for differential thrust, I would think, that should have been a clue that something wasn't normal. Maybe he thought it was just one blown tire. Still would have been smart to stop once you know it's not taxiing right. I wouldn't expect much out of ATC in Brazil.
 
I'm sure all those scratch marks and any other damage to the pavement/concrete are not going to go down well with the Brazilians either . . . AA might be getting a bill from them soon and you can bet that it'll be somewhat "inflated" if you know how the authorities operate over there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top