From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Date: 16 Apr 94 00:56:40 References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >I have observed three incidents in the last 9 months at Gatwick Airport >involving Delta Tristars which leave me a little puzzled. [First two cases deleted because I'm clueless] >In the third case yet another Delta Tristar was taking off when a main wheel >blew with a bang that was heard all over the airport. In fact we all thought >at first it was terrorists. The runway was closed for a good half hour while >the pieces were swept up. The Tristar continued to the States and landed safely >if a bit gingerly. I was surprised the aircraft decided to continue with its >trans-Atlantic flight given that I would have expected a real risk of the >debris puncturing the the wing tanks. IMHO, that was a good decision by the flight crew. A simple return to base would stress the remaining tires more than continuing normally because the airplane would be much lighter at its destination than it would be right after takeoff. The main gear (and the nose gear for that matter) are designed to be somewhat redundant. That is, if a tire blows, there should not be any cascading failures. A cascading failure would be another tire bursting because of the increased load generated by the loss of the first tire. Typically, a tire burst outside the gear well is considered pretty innocuous. Inside the gear well is another matter entirely. :-) The economic argument that the passengers paid to fly to Peoria (or wherever it was headed) and will be unhappy if they have to wait for another airplane would likely be a small influence in the decision to continue to the destination. I think the key issue was that it would be safer to continue than turn around and land. -- Terry email@example.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."