Arn't checks done to tyres and runways before flights take off?

Flight disruptions at Melbourne Airport as Etihad Airways aircraft stuck on runway for 14 hours after tyres ‘burst’.

An Etihad Airways plane was stuck on the runway at Melbourne Airport for almost 14 hours after it was forced to abandon a takeoff on Sunday night and its tyres reportedly “burst”.

It meant only one runway was available for operations, causing flight disruptions during what is expected to be Melbourne Airport’s busiest summer for international travel ever.

Etihad confirmed its 6.15pm flight bound for Abu Dhabi rejected takeoff for “technical reasons”, while the airport confirmed the aircraft’s tyres were damaged, meaning the Boeing 787-9 could not be towed off the runway until repairs were done on location.

Melbourne Airport told news.com.au early on Monday morning that the 289 passengers on board disembarked the aircraft safely on Sunday night and were bussed back to the terminal, but the aircraft remained on the runway.

In an 8am update, Melbourne Airport confirmed the aircraft had finally been safely towed from the runway.

“Runway inspections have been completed and the runway has been reopened for operations,” an airport spokeswoman said.........

Arn't checks done to tyres and runways before flights take off?

Flight disruptions at Melbourne Airport as Etihad Airways aircraft stuck on runway for 14 hours after tyres ‘burst’.

An Etihad Airways plane was stuck on the runway at Melbourne Airport for almost 14 hours after it was forced to abandon a takeoff on Sunday night and its tyres reportedly “burst”.

It meant only one runway was available for operations, causing flight disruptions during what is expected to be Melbourne Airport’s busiest summer for international travel ever.

Etihad confirmed its 6.15pm flight bound for Abu Dhabi rejected takeoff for “technical reasons”, while the airport confirmed the aircraft’s tyres were damaged, meaning the Boeing 787-9 could not be towed off the runway until repairs were done on location.

Melbourne Airport told news.com.au early on Monday morning that the 289 passengers on board disembarked the aircraft safely on Sunday night and were bussed back to the terminal, but the aircraft remained on the runway.

In an 8am update, Melbourne Airport confirmed the aircraft had finally been safely towed from the runway.

“Runway inspections have been completed and the runway has been reopened for operations,” an airport spokeswoman said.........

Boy oh boy are the press uninformed. Rejected takeoff, near V1, means very hot brakes transferring to the tire rims. Fusible plug temperature gone over. POP. Not the tire but the rim. Just as designed. Of course the captain should have vacated the runway so the fault would have been on a taxiway. I don't think the POH calls for fire service to hit the wheel assemblies with water to cool them unless there is a fire. POH does say park the plane for X hours before moving it after coming to a stop, no taxi to the gate!

Depending on the local rules the fire service may be required to cool the smoking hot brakes to something more acceptable.

As for vacating the runway rather than stopping on it, that depends on a whole lot of things, airline operating procedures, how the emergency braking systems are configured, airport layout and rules, and a few more...

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Update.

Air safety investigators say high exhaust gas temperatures caused Etihad's aborted take-off from Melbourne Airport.

Australia's aviation safety investigator has revealed the cause of Sunday night's aborted take-off from Melbourne Airport by an Etihad Airways passenger plane.

Airport fire crews rushed to the runway and doused the wheels of the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner after flight EY461 to Abu Dhabi "rejected take-off".

There were 298 passengers on board, some of whom reported being jolted by the sudden braking, but no one was hurt.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has just released new information revealing the flight crew observed a high exhaust gas temperature indication from the aircraft's right engine.

The ATSB said the rejected take-off was conducted in line with standard operating procedures.

"After gathering further information, the ATSB has determined it will not conduct an investigation into the incident," it said in a statement to the ABC......

Now for the big question, why did the electricial power go out?

The two black boxes on the Jeju Air jet that crashed and killed 179 people, stopped recording about four minutes before the diaster, according to officials.

Now for the big question, why did the electricial power go out?

Just a guess: Bird strike in both engines, so generators stopped feeding the main bus. Ram Air turbine deploys but only supplied vital flight control; not CVR and FDR...

Incident: United B39M at Chicago on Jan 12th 2025, coyote strike on departure

A United Boeing 737-9 MAX, registration N37507 performing flight UA-1727 from Chicago O'Hare,IL to Phoenix,AZ (USA), was accelerating for takeoff from runway 28R when the aircraft struck a coyote. The aircraft stopped the climb at 6000 feet and returned to Chicago for a safe landing on runway 28R about 40 minutes after departure.

The FAA reported: "AIRCRAFT STRUCK A COYOTE ON DEPARTURE DAMAGING RIGHT NOSE GEAR, CHICAGO, IL.", the aircraft sustained minor damage.

user comment:

Meep meep: Unconfirmed witness reports claim the coyote was carrying a lighted stick of dynamite, and was chasing a roadrunner, who had already crossed the parallel taxiway

Another coyote issue in the Chicago news yesterday, but not transportation related.

Norwood Park Woman Killed By Metra Train

A 69-year-old woman was fatally struck by a Metra train while stopped at a Norwood Park crossing on Saturday.

She drove into the train crossing at Nagle and Avondale avenues near Northwest Highway, according to a Metra spokesperson and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. She was hit by a Metra UP-NW train bound for Harvard around 3:50 p.m. on Saturday, according to Metra.

There were no other passengers in her car and the train crossing gates were down at the time of the incident, Metra said. The investigation is ongoing and Metra police are still collecting security footage and witness statements.

Now for the big question, why did the electricial power go out?

Just a guess: Bird strike in both engines, so generators stopped feeding the main bus. Ram Air turbine deploys but only supplied vital flight control; not CVR and FDR...

Except...

The Boeing 737-NG such as this one have no RAT to deploy!...

(They rely entirely on batteries that the pilots must manually switch into circuit... Assuming they're not too busy trying to fly with whatever is left still functioning...)

... And why oh why is there no battery power for the CVR and FDR?...

... And the Boeing paper checklists are far too long by far...

Fly safe?
Martin


RAT: Ram Air Turbine to provide emergency electrical supply
CVR: Cockpit Voice Recorder
FDR: Flight Data Recorder

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

While the B737NG doesn't have a RAT it does have an APU - but that has to be manually started, and those instructions are a long way down the checklist forest so the crew probably didn't reach that point....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Did they even get beyond the memory items? Either they were so badly trained as to have panic set in or something said this plane won't fly long enough to run the checklists.

The memory items are normally only the first few steps of a much larger checklist.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

(They rely entirely on batteries that the pilots must manually switch into circuit... Assuming they're not too busy trying to fly with whatever is left still functioning...)

Really? Unbelievable.

Well....
It's all to do with some aspects of the newer generations of the B737 having to be "the same" as on the very first generation, and it would appear that these recording devices weren't considered to be safety critical thus didn't need to be running all the time - hence no emergency power. Why the APU and standby battery systems need to be manually selected if the primary power is lost in flight is all down to history, and in this case totally crazy.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

It's a great shame that the data recorders don't have the data to the end of the flight- but hopefully what was recorded will give some idea of what went on in the lead up to the crash.
But whatever happened with the aircraft, i suspect a look at the flight crews training and their evaluations will become a very significant part of the investigation.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Not to forget that without the crazy design of the runway, with this massive wall just behind the end of the runway and the opposite direction's approach lights on massive and tall concrete foundations, such a deadly catastrophe would never have developed.

Not to forget that without the crazy design of the runway, with this massive wall just behind the end of the runway and the opposite direction's approach lights on massive and tall concrete foundations, such a deadly catastrophe would never have developed.

The non-frangible nature of the setup at the end of the runway made the accident worse than it should have been. Yes- It was a contributing factor to the severity of the crash, however it had absolutely no bearing on the cause of the crash, which was the aircraft touching down almost halfway down the length of the runway.

Even with the undercarriage down, and full braking & reverse thrust available, the aircraft would have still over-run the runway. And that late touchdown- the casue of that is what needs to be determined to avoid a repeat of this crash in the future, as there are many, many runways around the world that do have frangible structures at the end of them, but have hills, cliffs, rivers or oceans/lakes right at the end of them- even closer than the berm was in this instance.

Had it touched down in the actual touch down zone, even with it's high landing speed with no reverse thrust & no landing gear down, it would have stopped well before the end of the runway.


US Airways flight 1549 (Miracle on the Hudson) occurred during take-off- this suspected bird strike incident occurred during landing. If your approach is un-stabilised but have sufficient power for a go around, then go around. When on a stabilised approach, if a bird strike occurs, continue landing. If the approach is un-stabilised, but you don't know the status of your engines, continue landing.
These are factors in the cause of the accident, the berm at the end of the runway isn't. It is only factor in the severity of the accident.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Thank you for summarizing the facts in such a comprehensible way. This is not immediately obvious to laypeople without a deeper knowledge of aviation.

What bothers me the most is the timing of the sequence. Go around I get. But why the rush to get back to the airport? If you had the power to climb for the go around you have the power to climb to a safe altitude to take ten or fifteen minutes to run all the checklists and reconfigure for landing. Did something happen (or was indicated) on that go around that convinced the pilots to land immediately? If so that could account for the unstabilized approach. It is going to take the lab guys at least a year to get all the pieces under a microscope.

And all of us are assuming the bird strike is the only event that happened,