An American Airlines jet had a pretty dramatic rejected takeoff at Tampa Airport, and it makes for a great video…
In this post:
American 737 deals with burst tires on takeoff
This incident happened yesterday (Wednesday, July 10, 2024), and involves American Airlines flight AA590, scheduled to fly from Tampa (TPA) to Phoenix (PHX). The flight was operated by a 25-year-old Boeing 737-800 with the registration code N908AN.
At around 7:47AM local time, the jet began its takeoff roll on runway 19R, and once the jet reached a high speed, multiple tires burst on the right hand main gear. This caused the crew to reject the takeoff at a speed of over 150 knots, which is very close to the plane’s takeoff speed.
The plane managed to slow down at the end of the runway (it took the very last exit), and then it made a left turn to get onto a taxiway. At that point the plane held its position, and fire trucks were dispatched, as the right hand main gear also caught fire. It took a bit over three minutes from when the plane came to a stop until the first fire truck arrived.
Passengers were brought to the terminal in a bus, and the flight ended up being canceled, with passengers being rebooked on other flights. As you’d expect, the jet is still on the ground the following morning.
Below you can see a video of the incident from a ground observer. It’s pretty cool that this was captured on video, though the commentary sure is… something.
Below you can see an excellent VASAviation recreation of what happened, including the air traffic control audio, plus a visualization.
The pilots did a great job… probably?
Ultimately the pilots deserve credit for bringing the aircraft to a stop, and getting everyone off the plane safely. In an emergency, being a pilot is extremely stressful, and you have to make some split second decisions that can have big implications. As much as there are checklists and procedures to follow, there’s also an element of following your gut.
In this case, the pilots may not have immediately known what happened. They were seconds from lifting off, and then they probably heard a loud bang or thud, looked at their flight instruments, and then made the decision to reject the takeoff. It’s a good thing that they decided to reject the takeoff when they did, and not a few seconds later, or else the outcome could have been different.
The Aviation Herald is a great site that covers aviation safety incidents, and there’s a knowledgable group of pilots commenting over there. While it doesn’t take away from the pilots of this flight safely bringing the aircraft to a stop, there are a couple of interesting opinions I see expressed there, which I think are worth mentioning.
Multiple people are confused by why the pilots made the decision to turn off the runway, rather than just coming to a stop on the runway. I imagine the pilots were trying to minimize operational disruptions at the airport, but they had also just dealt with a major incident. As one commenter poinjts out:
The video perfectly illustrates why you should stop on the runway. If any debris had punctured the right wing with fuel pooling next to the right gear and the aircraft stopped 90 degs to runway (wind?) heading, this could’ve been British Airtours all over again.
Here’s the accident that’s being referenced.
Others say they would’ve just continued with the takeoff roll at such a high speed. One pilot suggests that even Boeing doesn’t recommend rejecting a takeoff above 80 knots for blown tires, but notes that the pilots may not have known exactly what was going on:
Boeings own recommendation is to not reject for a blown tire over 80kts. There are only 4 items listed to reject for when above 80. Most manufacturers are the same. The main reason being v1 is predicated on maximum braking with all tires.
That said, when you hear a large bang and vibration it is easy to misjudge as something else. Even a catastrophic engine failure. So the reject while not ideal is understandable. However, please stop on the runway. It provides easier access for the trucks to get around. To heck with the other aircraft on approach, they can go around. And the runway is useless anyway until any debris is cleaned and a full inspection takes place.
Anyway, none of this is so to take away from the pilots successfully bringing the plane to a stop. My point is simply to say that I’m not sure there was one right or wrong response here. If the pilots had elected to continue the takeoff and then came around to land safely, that would’ve been a perfectly good response as well.
Bottom line
An American Airlines Boeing 737 suffered two burst tires as it was taking off at Tampa Airport yesterday. While burst tires happen, what makes this interesting is that it happened at a very high speed, shortly before the plane was supposed to rotate. The pilots made a split second decision to reject the takeoff, and brought the plane to a stop with little runway to spare.
What do you make of this incident?
In an aftermath of an emergency there's usually no shortage of people telling you what they feel you did wrong and how you should have handled it. People who weren't there.
Have this guy pee on those wheels!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2024/07/05/man-pees-on-plane-american-airlines/74307203007/#
High speed rejected take off is risky, but they had plenty of extra runway in front of them. I would have taken off, but that’s because “my book” said so. The Air France Concorde did “the right thing”, but crashed regardless. If they had aborted their take off, they just might have survived. That is a very tough call, so well done, gentlemen!
Multiple things can be true here:
1) Great job by the crew to maintain safety of the flight and passengers.
2) In most cases, the second commenter ben hilighted is 100% correct. As you accelerate down the runway for takeoff, the items that you would reject a takeoff for narrow depending on airspeed. Below 80 kts =low speed, and aborting following a burst tire is 100% acceptable. Above 80 kts = high speed...
Multiple things can be true here:
1) Great job by the crew to maintain safety of the flight and passengers.
2) In most cases, the second commenter ben hilighted is 100% correct. As you accelerate down the runway for takeoff, the items that you would reject a takeoff for narrow depending on airspeed. Below 80 kts =low speed, and aborting following a burst tire is 100% acceptable. Above 80 kts = high speed and reject-able items narrow down to direct safety of flight concerns (flight control system malfunction, or complete engine failure). There have been a lot of accidents where flight crew rejected for a burst tire, which resulted in runway excursions and passenger injuries when it was perfectly acceptable to takeoff, leave the gear down, and circle back around.
This worked out for the crew because of the length of the runways at Tampa. If this were on a 5-7k foot runway, and pilots rejected in the high speed regime for a burst tire, the outcome could have been a lot worse.
The other thing I'd like to point out is an area that still needs improvement from an aviation safety perspective: How are the pilots supposed to know it was a burst tire? The brake temps page isn't available (the engine indication page is active). The decision has to be made in .1 seconds and, to my knowledge, there isn't a clear cut way to tell "oh that's a blown tire." You are looking at engine's N1, N2, EGT, etc. So they should know that the engines are working, but not much beyond that.
All in all, good job on the crew, but this is an area that needs improvement in the aviation safety area.
People are right when they say above 80kts you would not reject for a blown tire………the pilots did not reject because of the blown tire
I used to take this flight weekly after visiting GF while we were in college. Scary
Waiting for the “DEI tire” trolls to emerge….
In this day and age when I can have tiny low-cost video cameras and trained on every part of my property (and access them from my phone), why is it that pilots, such as those in this case, remain blind? Why isn't video of every part of the aircraft available in the cockpit? In this case, one glance would have told them they were on fire, and I imagine they would have acted differently.
Many modern widebody aircraft have this as an option. It's typically the same camera passengers can see through the IFE if the aircraft has it. Pilots can have the same video feed play on their screens in the cockpit with a push of a button. I don't know if it is an option on the 737/A320 though. So, I agree with you that this should be a feature on all aircraft in this day and age.
When I watched this I was wondering at what point do you evacuate the passengers via slides? The plane was on fire, right under the fuel tanks, and it all ended fine, but easily could not have. My guess is that the pilot didn't know about the fire because they can't see down there, and that is 100% understandable and I assume that is the answer as to why they didn't evacuate the passengers, but...
When I watched this I was wondering at what point do you evacuate the passengers via slides? The plane was on fire, right under the fuel tanks, and it all ended fine, but easily could not have. My guess is that the pilot didn't know about the fire because they can't see down there, and that is 100% understandable and I assume that is the answer as to why they didn't evacuate the passengers, but maybe I'm missing something else? Can a pilot weigh in on this? If they had known that the fire was going on would that create an evacuating situation or was it still wiser to keep everyone in the aircraft?
In an ideal world, when the passengers on board saw the flames (which one said they could) they would notify a Flight Attendant, and the Flight Attendant would relay the information to the cockpit, and then the pilots would have a more complete picture.
Boeing…
You mean Michelin.....
...is not having a GOODYEAR
Your comment wins!!
Nope. This was either poor maintainence by AA or debris on the ground.
I don't know whether Boeing or a subcontractor built that right main strut, but it held up under remarkable forces and then a brake fire to boot. "Good" on the manufacturer whoever it was,
@Michael Congratulations! You correctly identified a 737 as a Boeing product! The majority of commercial planes flying in the US are Boeing. Almost every accident that occurs on a US commercial flight is going to be on a Boeing or Airbus aircraft. That doesn't itself mean there's a fault with the design or manufacturing.
Delta, as America's most premium airline, would never make such a mistake.
As a retired airline pilot, if I have the runway ahead, every time I would reject the takeoff and I did in the simulator. The potential is taking a burning wheel into the wheel well, which has happened before with catastrophic results.
It is still a matter of judgement based on what your environmental and physical situation is perceived.
I'm not a pilot, just a long time avgeek and engineer and you expressed my initial thoughts upon reading the aforementioned Monday mooring quarterbacking. The last thing you want is a hot fire in the wheel wells. That has ended horribly on more than one occasion.
@everyone in this thread who is concerned about a flaming wheel being brought into the wheel well... did you pause to consider NOT raising the gear? It's not mandated that after rotating you have to raise the gear. Rotate-> leave the gear down (tower can tell you if they're on fire or not) -> stay below max gear extended airspeed (vle on the A320 is approx 280 kts) ->circle back around and land on the...
@everyone in this thread who is concerned about a flaming wheel being brought into the wheel well... did you pause to consider NOT raising the gear? It's not mandated that after rotating you have to raise the gear. Rotate-> leave the gear down (tower can tell you if they're on fire or not) -> stay below max gear extended airspeed (vle on the A320 is approx 280 kts) ->circle back around and land on the same runway (and you'll have more runway to stop with = less brakes required, reducing the chance of a fire on the ground)
Would never happen on Delta. All their aircrafts use tires built for the space shuttle.
@Ben. This is another example of a childish, immature comment that adds nothing of value to your blog. It is obviously a fraudulent account. Your blog is better than this. Please delete these comments and profiles.
And what mistake was it that was made here?