Worcester

Also am I right in thinking the larger aircraft have the ability to dump fuel inflight and may have done so prior to landing, so landing weight would not have been an issue.

bricksoft

Fair enough, I can see where my original post may have appeared to suggest I thought I knew better.
I was genuinely curious about why a return was better than continuing the flight. I did not consider collateral damage from the original burst tyre.

I work in IT for one of the major suppliers of IT solutions to the airline and travel industry. Your point about people watching over my shoulder is well made ( especially when its a close relative )

I was originally surprised and upset to be called foolish, and allowed this to fuel a misguided slur against Waterhorse.

Waterhorse, please accept my apology

Antonio8069

The CA news reported that LGW was closed for awhile as a result of this incident involving an AC Rouge flight:
http://www.citynews.ca/2017/07/17/ai...ff-at-gatwick/
I am curious what (if any) of this can be attributed to state of repair? Rouge has a dedicated fleet of re-furb 767's i.e. an older aircraft. Is there an industry standard for tire replacement?

Waterhorse

Sorry. I was a little testy this morning. There are many reasons why a return may be more advisable than a flight continuation. We do not know what, if any additional damage was done when the tyre blew. They are under significant pressure and can do a lot of damage to brakes, hydraulics, the undercarriage itself and can have unknown ramifications. The issue of a return in this circumstance is difficult to determine especially at this stage with such a lack of information. The modern age seems totally unable to wait for information and a rush to judgement is seldom wise.

Waterhorse

Tyres are replaced when they are worn. The pilot inspects them before flight as do the ground crew. They are inspected on a daily and weekly check and are replaced if there is any sign of wear beyond limits.

Nimrod1965

I read an article on the NATS internal website today with an account from one of the Supervisors on this incident. The aircraft burst a tyre on departure and the Captain was concerned about possible further damage to the aircraft so was vectored out over the coast whilst discussion took place on what debris was found on the runway. Following these discussions, the Captain elected to return to Gatwick and did so 50 minutes after departure, fuel was vented whilst holding over the sea.

On landing back at Gatwick, the aircraft suffered another tyre burst and shut down on the runway resulting in some aircraft diverting whilst the northern runway was brought into use, primarily for departing flights. However, damage was noted to this runway by several aircraft and had to be closed for inspection, more diversions resulted across the southern half of Britain but airfields were rapidly filling up and unable to accept further inbound aircraft. Following a repair and inspection, the northern runway was again brought back into service.

The main runway was repaired, inspected and brought back into use but not after a considerable amount of disruption.

I think I have remembered the sequence of events correctly but happy to be corrected if not. I was in work on the day but not in any of the control rooms, it was evident that something was up though. ATC across NATS and other units did a superb job keeping everyone who was airborne safe despite the large amount of aircraft calling PAN PAN and even MAYDAY due to fuel shortages. A lack of parking space at some airfields rendered them closed to inbound aircraft, departures were also stopped in order to concentrate on inbounds and diversions further compounding the issue.

LordBuckethead

Really interesting insight, thank you. For the uninitiated, if an aircraft declares a PAN or MAYDAY for low fuel, would this be likely to have the effect of opening up a 'full' airfield to allow them to land, or would they have to go somewhere else anyway, and what's the furthest they're likely to have to go?

Waterhorse

If you gotta land you gotta land. Airfields will refuse to accept diversions based upon their ability to handle them on the ground but a MAYDAY and the intention of landing at your nearest airfield will trump that. You will sit on the ground with no support but it's always better to be on the ground wishing you were airborne than being airborne wishing you were on the ground. As to how far we will go on diversion, it is limited by the fuel carried - if it gets very quiet, you have gone too far.

PUCCI GALORE

My Love, that literally made me spit hot tea. I burst out laughing- that was priceless. How often have I thought along similar lines and didn't actually have the heart to say so. I've been on such incidents so I know. LGW is a glaring example of Britain' useless airport policy years back. One government wouldn't pend to build a new runway in Tory heartlands, and the other who spent most everything and more period.

You be as testy as you like. It's refreshing. Would you like to be a Mucci or is that too frivolous a response to entertaining me?

Saltire74

I try and abide by my signature line but it doesn't always seem to work

S

rapidex

One of the issues of tyre bursts is what other damage has occured.The B767 needs to retract the gear to fly to destination.The gear may not retract properly if damage has been done,or even worse it may not subsequently extend at the end of the flight.Better to leave it where it is,dump fuel and return and let the engineers sort it out.

N1120A

Landings are less restricted by runway length than takeoffs are. At 8415', any commercial airliner can land on Gatwick's second runway.

The average age of the Rouge 767 fleet is 19.2 years, with some of the aircraft being 2003 builds from Hawaiian. They aren't particularly old and are well maintained. Plus, tires are replaced when worn. Aircraft sometimes have tire blow outs, just like on cars. There are myriad reasons why.

In fact, Air Canada's mainline 767s are significantly older than the Rouge aircraft, an average of over 27 years old - all of which having flown for Canadian before AC.