CJ IN YWG

nite raider · Post by **nite raider** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:22 pm

CJ's 727 was parked on the runway in YWG with 4 blown main tires for most of the day. Anybody got the story?

wha happen · Post by **wha happen** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:23 pm

well im assuming they had tire problems.

But thats just my opinion.

Just kidding, hope everyone is all right

FREEFALL · Post by **FREEFALL** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:12 am

Had a fire indication, dumped fuel, landed and blew the tires.

Pachanga · Post by **Pachanga** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:06 am

How do you know?

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:49 pm

How do you know?

Cargodog · Post by **Cargodog** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:54 pm

Aircraft has already returned to YHM.

Pachanga · Post by **Pachanga** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:37 pm

gelbisch wrote:
Pachanga wrote:How do you know?

What? You don't think my questions legit?

FREEFALL wrote:Heard it is a Regional Jet. Who's and Why, I don't know thus far.

Then later...

FREEFALL wrote:Latest scoop is a CargoJet B727. Coming first hand from an eyewitness.

....and afterwards....

FREEFALL wrote:The FIC said a a CARJ, pilot from YWG said B727

...and finally, after all previous had been stated, THE KICKER!

FREEFALL wrote:All second hand info.

So 'gelbish' do you still feel I am asking a dumb question?

It's amazing how badly people want to be the first to report something exciting!

therubberjungle · Post by **therubberjungle** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:06 pm

FREEFALL is correct. I was in YWG when it happened. Good job CJ crew, it could have been a lot worse.

Cheers

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:00 pm

Pachanga wrote:So 'gelbish' do you still feel I am asking a dumb question?

Freefall's right. So no point jumping all over him, right? You didn't know the answer, so let the man (woman?) speak.

Floaty Buoy · Post by **Floaty Buoy** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:44 am

I don't know about a GOOD job Rubberjungle? I just don't know how they would blow 4 tires, ruin the brakes, and burn up a couple rims, if they were at there max. landing weight after dumping fuel? I was told they had a fire indication light come on in the #2 engine, then proceeded to land 20,000lbs over weight. I heard there was no dumping of fuel at all. "Let it burn" I say, its designed to burn and fall off anyways!

We'll all see when it comes out in some Transport incident right up.

But you are right Rubber, at least no one got hurt. Just a couple of innocent tires!!

727driver · Post by **727driver** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:07 am

Floaty Bouy:

I wouldn't start playing monday morning quarter back: If anything a fire in #2 is most critical. If you knew anything about the 27 you want that fire out. Unlike a pod or pilon mounted engine if you let it burn your probably going to lose the whole tail section. Four blown tires are going to be the least of your concern. Be careful when you comment about things you are not well versed on. Instead of being critical of a situation you have no real knowledge of; how about a "good work boys". After all this was still a brotherhood. Hats off to the crew great job!

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:50 am

Well said 727driver, I was about to say the same thing about a #2 fire. Next to a wheel well fire (which is not survivable in a '27 for the most part) the one I'd hate to see is a fire in #2, of course followed by a failure/fire in #1 your day just got a lot worse

or at least the S.O.'s day just went into over time

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:21 pm

After both bottles were discharged the fire warning remained illuminated... hence the overweight landing.

It was a job very well done, and as the other two suggested, Floaty, know the facts before you pass judgment.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:51 pm

Anytime you have a fire/smoke on board do the drill, if the fire/smoke warnings persist, land any way possible ASAP. There are times in this business that thinking outside the box can and does save lives..

Good Job..

J31 · Post by **J31** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:10 am

Is the 727 able to dump fuel? I know the 737 can not.

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:45 am

It can, it's just a matter of time. If I remember correctly it's at a rate of about 2500lbs/minute. So if you take off heavy say at 190,000 or more, you got a ways to go to get down to 164,000 (or whatever the landing weight is for that specific aircraft).

Boeing Driver · Post by **Boeing Driver** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:58 am

The rate at which fuel can be dumped on the 727 can change dramatically depending on how many fuel pumps are on. On a bad day (2 engine out), the dump rate is very slow. If you lose 2 engines taking off out of Calgary for example, you need to dump fuel NOW! Your drift down altitude at heavy weights is in the area of 3000ft. CYYC elev. 3500ft. Their was a DC-10 years ago taking off from somewhere in Europe and they lost 2 engines on takeoff. Their Flight Engineer was so "on the ball" that dumped fuel actually landed on the runway. That is speed! That's the kind of guy I want sitting behind me. "Engine failure #1 and #2. Dumping fuel!!!"

Cheers!

FlyByWire · Post by **FlyByWire** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:35 am

Out of curiosity, why is a wheel well fire not survivable in the 727? Is this common to most aircraft or just the 72'?

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:04 am

You're right BD, I should have said 300 lbs per operating pump (there are 8 of them), once you start losing engines you also lose generators and therefore the number of pumps (which are electrically driven) that are available to use.

As for a wheel wheel fire, there is no fire extinguishing capability in the wheel wells of a 727, or at least it didn't come standard. With all the hydrolic lines running through there if the fire burns into one and it bursts you add a hell of alot of fuel to the fire. Again it's just a matter of the time it takes to get it on the ground before the situation gets too critical. I think that's what happened to the Prop Air metro and the Nation Air DC-8 if I'm not mistaken.

Care to confirm that BD?

virga · Post by **virga** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:26 am

Boeing actually recommends that you do not dump fuel but rather land over weight. Airplanes are designed to land safely even at their take off weight without any maintenence problems. All it would take to clear the a/c is a visual inspection of the gear and any bent metal. If it all looks good it wouldn't require ND testing.

Boeing Driver · Post by **Boeing Driver** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:46 am

The problem with a wheel well fire in the 727 is that the Keel beam runs right through the wheel well area. If there is an actual wheel well fire and that keel beam fails, the airplane will essentially break in half. Teacher is right that their is no fire extingishing system for the wheel well. The APU is also in the wheel well (although shrouded). That is exactly what happened to Nationair in Jedda. I'm not quite sure about the metro in Mirabel though.

In the 727, I would rather have 2 engines on fire with the loss of "A" system, with #3 generator MEL'd landing with essential power on standby than suffer an actual wheel well fire. That's pretty much how I feel about it. I always shake my head when I see guys land in Moncton on 29 and exit on Bravo. The airplane has amazing brakes (V1 and Vr are the same) , but the amount of heat created is mind blowing. If you look at the brake energy charts, a max weight landing using max braking requires 40 minutes of cooling before even approaching the wheels. Everybody has different comfort levels with certain procedures, but I like to lean on the side of caution.

Cheers!

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:52 am

Boeing Driver wrote:That's the kind of guy I want sitting behind me. "Engine failure #1 and #2. Dumping fuel!!!"

Well that's how we're trained to do it... get rid of the fuel NOW!!