Ask The Pilot

[Daveller]

Do pilots have to remember and study the IAP and airport chart before flying there? Like photographic memory and/or remember numbers.

 

[Rabs97]

Do pilots have to remember and study the IAP and airport chart before flying there? Like photographic memory and/or remember numbers.

Don’t need to study every chart as the good folk at your airline (or the pilot themself if it’s a smaller company) supplies a set of charts (Jeppesen or DAPs) on each aircraft.

Once upon a time they’d be in several paper manuals so you got the experience of almost breaking your back carrying them, taking them out of the folder as needed for that flight, then placing them back into the folder in the correct order once the flight was completed. And then there was also the joy of manual amendments, where they’d mail you a big set amendments every month (usually just some minor grammar change) that you’d then have the excitement of laboriously taking out each old page from the manual and replacing it with a new one. When you got to a bigger airline there was usually a “Flight Library” department who’s sole job was to do the manual amendments and place them in each aircraft.

These days we all have iPads so amendments are done at a touch of a button and we can call up any chart for any airport on the route network instantly.

 

[jb747]

Do pilots have to remember and study the IAP and airport chart before flying there? Like photographic memory and/or remember numbers.

I'd have a very good read of all of the paperwork for any airport that I hadn't been to before. Beyond that though, you read it off as you need it. Never action them from memory (though you do end up remembering the details of places you go to often enough).

 

[RSD]

LATAM flight LA2482 (a 767-300) has had a "interesting" landing in ATL - passengers reported that the touchdown didn't feel like a hard landing etc and then it felt like the plane was running over rumble strips as it continued up the runway - and it didn't make it off the runway for obvious reasons -

Any idea what might have caused all eight tyres on the mains to go like this given what the passengers said they felt?

 

[jb747]

A heavy landing is not going to cause this. Or, if it did, the tyres won’t be the only thing broken.

He’s burst all of the tyres, which is a good effort. They look to have been worn through, so brake lockup. Normally you’d expect the anti-skid to ensure you can’t do this, so for whatever reason, that has to be non functional. An anti-skid failure is going to show up on EICAS, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. Procedurally, you make a normal landing. Use the longest available runway. Make a single moderate brake application, and then do not cycle them. On a dry runway there should be no further issue, but on a wet runway you’ll use a lot more (distance).

I’ll dig out a 767 manual and see if there’s any more to find.

 

[RSD]

A heavy landing is not going to cause this. Or, if it did, the tyres won’t be the only thing broken.

He’s burst all of the tyres, which is a good effort. They look to have been worn through, so brake lockup. Normally you’d expect the anti-skid to ensure you can’t do this, so for whatever reason, that has to be non functional. An anti-skid failure is going to show up on EICAS, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. Procedurally, you make a normal landing. Use the longest available runway. Make a single moderate brake application, and then do not cycle them. On a dry runway there should be no further issue, but on a wet runway you’ll use a lot more (distance).

I’ll dig out a 767 manual and see if there’s any more to find.

Cheers. It all seems a bit odd - happened on 27L which is 9000 feet long, 27R is 12,390 feet long and as you said they would have opted for the longer runway if they were aware through EICAS that anti-skid was non-functional. Nothing in any of the photos or videos that I saw indicated any sign of that so I would be pretty confident the runway was dry.

 

[jb747]

The anti skid system requires approximately 800 extra metres for the landing calculation. 9,000' would probably still be okay, on a dry runway.

The system normally provided individual protection to each wheel. There is a backup mode in which it works for wheel pairs across a bogie. I'm not seeing a smoking gun anywhere.

 

[RSD]

The anti skid system requires approximately 800 extra metres for the landing calculation. 9,000' would probably still be okay, on a dry runway.

The system normally provided individual protection to each wheel. There is a backup mode in which it works for wheel pairs across a bogie. I'm not seeing a smoking gun anywhere.

Cheers @jb747. Hopefully there might be some more information released from the authorities as to how this has ended up happening - its a bit of an odd one.

 

[jb747]

A comment that has come up, but for which there’s no verification, is that the tyres blew almost immediately after landing. The auto brake activates very quickly, but it does not normally command all that much braking. It tries for a deceleration rate, and most landings use it at the minimum setting. The only setting that commands enough braking to engage the anti skid (on a dry runway) is RTO, and you can’t select that in flight.

 

[RSD]

A comment that has come up, but for which there’s no verification, is that the tyres blew almost immediately after landing.

That is consistent with what the passengers reported - initial touch was unremarkable but then it felt like they were running over rumble strips as the plane proceeded down the runway.

The auto brake activates very quickly, but it does not normally command all that much braking. It tries for a deceleration rate, and most landings use it at the minimum setting. The only setting that commands enough braking to engage the anti skid (on a dry runway) is RTO, and you can’t select that in flight.

Sounds like its still a bit of a mystery then as to what has happened - but to do all 8 tyres suggests that whatever it was it was pretty severe - and anti-skid didn't work as desired.