One more reason to be wary of the Cirrus...

[wsuffa]

Cirrus is certainly not building up a great track record...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050312X00305&key=1

"Once he had lined up on the runway for takeoff, his wife noted flames from the right main landing gear brake area. They exited the airplane and called 9-1-1. By the time the fire department arrived, the right wing had melted and collapsed"

 

[Brian Austin]

Cirrus is certainly not building up a great track record...

Brake problems could (and have) happen on any number of manufacturers' planes. I wouldn't really blame Cirrus for this one.

 

[wsuffa]

Brake problems could (and have) happen on any number of manufacturers' planes. I wouldn't really blame Cirrus for this one.

They don't usually melt the wing....

 

[Brian Austin]

They don't usually melt the wing....

LOL! Okay, you got me there. I suspect any composite body would see similar damage, though.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Brake problems could (and have) happen on any number of manufacturers' planes. I wouldn't really blame Cirrus for this one.

True, but it would seem to me that airplanes which use differential braking to steer on the ground would be more likely to have brake overheating problems, particularly if the aircraft was "pulling" to one side as the NTSB report said, which would make you continuously apply opposite brake to keep straight.

The other question which comes to mind is how much damage a metal wing would have sustained (I have no idea).

 

[river_rat]

Cirrus is certainly not building up a great track record...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050312X00305&key=1

"Once he had lined up on the runway for takeoff, his wife noted flames from the right main landing gear brake area. They exited the airplane and called 9-1-1. By the time the fire department arrived, the right wing had melted and collapsed"

I don't believe anything I read and only half of what I see. That wing
holds 40 gallons of fuel. If it had in fact melted I would think the whole plane
would have gone up. However, I can believe that the landing gear melted and collapsed.

By the way, there is a fire extinguisher under the pilots seat. Oh well,
probably a rental.

greg

 

[jkaduk]

They don't usually melt the wing....

I know of an Archer that the pilot didn't get the hand brake all the way off for taxi. Wheels caught fire, burned the wings off, totaled the airplane.

 

[river_rat]

I don't believe anything I read and only half of what I see. That wing
holds 40 gallons of fuel. If it had in fact melted I would think the whole plane
would have gone up. However, I can believe that the landing gear melted and collapsed.

By the way, there is a fire extinguisher under the pilots seat. Oh well,
probably a rental.

greg

Here is a link to a news article that explains better.

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/03/09/news/local_news/story06.txt

But of course I still dont believe anything I read.

greg

 

[Brian Austin]

What really gets me is that he taxi'd all the way to the runway with it locked. It almost seems like someone didn't do their testing very well (owner, pilot and/or mechanic).

 

[imQ]

I saw a B-1 land about 4000 feet down a 9000 ft runway, with a tailwind. By the time they got it stopped the mains had all blown, and were burning. I never did figure out if the brakes overheated and blew the tires or what.

 

[Henning]

True, but it would seem to me that airplanes which use differential braking to steer on the ground would be more likely to have brake overheating problems, particularly if the aircraft was "pulling" to one side as the NTSB report said, which would make you continuously apply opposite brake to keep straight.

The other question which comes to mind is how much damage a metal wing would have sustained (I have no idea).

Any metal that ends in IUM burns quite spectacularly (class D fire). Want proof? Throw an old VW block (magnesium) on a good hot bonfire or send some idjit to go cut some aluminum plate with a cutting torch, just don't forget the weenies and marshmallows.

If the tire catches fire, minimally you're replacing the wing since the T value of the aluminum is non existant in the area above the gear anymore, and that includes the spar on most light aircraft. Anyway, I wouldn't fly that wing anymore until it was replaced or retempered, and I fly lots of junk.

 

[Michael]

I think he would've been better taking off. The air would've cooled the breaks down enough and if there were any flame, it would've distingued it. Then again, if it didnt...Id hate to be up there on fire, when i could've stayed on the ground...

 

[Brian Austin]

I think he would've been better taking off. The air would've cooled the breaks down enough and if there were any flame, it would've distingued it. Then again, if it didnt...Id hate to be up there on fire, when i could've stayed on the ground...

Easy to say that now but if you looked out and saw flames, what would YOUR reaction be? Mine sure as heck wouldn't be 'hit throttle'!

I would have grabbed the fire extinguisher, though. Part of my checklist is to put my hand on it and confirm I know where the release is. I figure if I do it often enough in a familiar plane, reaching for it will be automatic and I won't be fumbling trying to figure out how to get it out of its mount.

 

[Len Lanetti]

What really gets me is that he taxi'd all the way to the runway with it locked.

Funky, sticking, brakes are a serious no go item even more so when you steer the plane with the brakes.

Len
Former Grumman Driver

 

[Len Lanetti]

I think he would've been better taking off.

Michael,

I do not think he would have been better off taking off. Unless I mis read something he had not even started the take off run. Even if he had started the take off run smoke (visual or smell) or flames is an immediate take off abort for me.

I think he would have been better off figuring out what was going on with the plane before he taxi'd a mile and a half.

From my Tiger days a long taxi with a cross wind is something to consider before starting the taxi.

Len

 

[HuskerMedic]

If he was having to apply brake just to taxi, how did he ever think he was going to keep the thing on the centerline during the takeoff roll?

 

[poadeleted3]

I think he would've been better taking off. The air would've cooled the breaks down enough and if there were any flame, it would've distingued it. Then again, if it didnt...Id hate to be up there on fire, when i could've stayed on the ground...

There's not even a small chance I'm taking a burning airplane into the air. Let the plane burn, I'm running away.

 

[Tom-D]

If he was having to apply brake just to taxi, how did he ever think he was going to keep the thing on the centerline during the takeoff roll?

Some days we must try to go the extra mile to make the big mistake.

 

[RobertGerace]

There's not even a small chance I'm taking a burning airplane into the air.

Me either.

When he had to apply opposite brake to taxi, he should have stopped / shut down right there.

As I gain experience with airplanes, I have found one fact to be constant:

If something isn't right...figure it out right now! Fix it! Explain it! and if on the ground, DON'T TAKE OFF.

Thank God nothing serious has happened to me...but every time something minor happens, that I am disapointed with myself about, I can trace it back to something being wrong that I didn't resolve.

 

[RobertGerace]

This reminds me of a story. I'm changing the name of the CFII to protect him, but anybody who knows him will know who I'm talking about when I refer to him as Kermit.

I met Kermit, a 10,000 hour career accountant and part-time CFI, who had acquired 9,000 of his hours in the pattern and practice area in C152's and C172's. He was the chief flight instructor at my flight school.

After just two flights with him I fired him and found another CFI.

About a year later I was talking to a friend who had been a CFI at the school and is now a corporate pilot, and I asked him what ever happened to Old Kermit?

Here is the answer:

It turns out that he flew a trip with an instrument student and upon landing they had a brake failure on the right side. (It was an SR22.) The student was the typical Type-A, Macho, Invunerable, ADM-less type and talked Kermit into a right-brake-less takeoff in an SR-22.

Anybody with any time in an SR22 knows that you can't take off without the right brake, and most likely can't even taxi. Kermit's idea was to sit on the h-stab and drag is feet to allow Mr. Type A to taxi, and then start on the far right side of the runway...go from zero to full power in one push, and try to take off before running off the left side of the runway.

I don't remember if it was during taxi or takeoff, but at some point he got it stuck in the mud and broke the gear...and got fired.

Sigh...

 

[gkainz]

Bob, that's absolutely amazing! The only thing missing is liberal application of alcohol and the obligatory preliminary phrase "Hey Bubba! Watch this!"

 

[bbchien]

(1) No self respecting taildragger pilot would ever let this occur. What's to counteract Torque and P behind that 540 cid installation? When a Staggerwing starts going for the grass (WITH BRAKES) there's no stopping it.
(2) Greg, I like your byline. I wish I had thought of it. I agree you have to master all the prohibited maneuvers. In the Navy say, "We'll do it until they stop us".
(3) Bob, that sounds about right. You don't get judgement until you understand utility. 10,000 hours in the pattern does not an airman make.
(4) About five years ago when I made the AK trip and just missed getting to meet TD (a little fuel short, landed at Victoria instead of Whidbey), A C180 pilot did the same thing. The Runway at Gustavus was closed, and the entire airport community was helping disassemble the left wing. But he had a "good reason": he had the right brake failure at Gustavus. There is no road and no federal express to Gustavus. So he setup landing on the BEEEGGG runway a Juneau with a right crosswind (use the LEFT brake). He bought the parts. But his error was, he did not repair the assembly at Juneau. On landing at Gustavus, the wind shifted, and he went into the weeds. His comment: "Shouda taken the tools with." FAA guy out there the next day at our B&B's comment: "This is reality. Nope he shouldn't depart with a known deficiency. 2 hours of re-education with a CFI!".
(5) I rather suspect it's not the airplane, it's the PILOT, silly.

 

[Tom-D]

quote

Any metal that ends in IUM burns quite spectacularly (class D fire).

end quote

During the 1967 cruise of the Oriskany CVA34 The Ship was taking on Supplies, ordance, and some mag flares used by the F-8 Crusader to light up tagrets for photo runs.

During this operation the crew stowing the mag flares dropped one setting it off, with out thinking a crew man threw it into the flare locker and dogged the hatch. The ship burned for 3 days and 56 crewmen lost their lives. I was a member of the off load crew when it returned to Subic Bay R.P. not a pleasent job.

After this the NAVY investigated how to extinguish mag fires. They found that water can extinguish a burning flare. Water sprayed into the molten mass that must be there to support the fire, will blow away the molten metal causing the fire to burn its self out in very small particals.

Simple, effective, but unknown until 56 men died on Oriskany CVA34.

 

[gkainz]

(2) Greg, I like your byline. I wish I had thought of it. I agree you have to master all the prohibited maneuvers. In the Navy say, "We'll do it until they stop us".

Thanks, Bruce. I wish I had thought of it as well, but alas, I found it on a quote board with no source attributed. Gotta love those NATOPS STAND-CHECKS every year. I think GA would benefit greatly from something similar. Memorize the red pages and prove it regularly.

 

[gkainz]

...56 men died on Oriskany CVA34.

The Oriskany and the Forrestal fires ended up on the shipboard firefighting training films - mandatory training before every deployment. Very sobering stuff.

 

[Henning]

quote

Any metal that ends in IUM burns quite spectacularly (class D fire).

end quote

During the 1967 cruise of the Oriskany CVA34 The Ship was taking on Supplies, ordance, and some mag flares used by the F-8 Crusader to light up tagrets for photo runs.

During this operation the crew stowing the mag flares dropped one setting it off, with out thinking a crew man threw it into the flare locker and dogged the hatch. The ship burned for 3 days and 56 crewmen lost their lives. I was a member of the off load crew when it returned to Subic Bay R.P. not a pleasent job.

After this the NAVY investigated how to extinguish mag fires. They found that water can extinguish a burning flare. Water sprayed into the molten mass that must be there to support the fire, will blow away the molten metal causing the fire to burn its self out in very small particals.

Simple, effective, but unknown until 56 men died on Oriskany CVA34.

Yep, I watch those movies every couple of years when I have to redo some element of STCW, Firefighting or Bridge Resource Management, the Oriskany and the Forrestal fires.

There is another powder for class D fires, and smothering them in salt works as well. When ever we machine magnesium, we have a bucket of salt and a scoop. I've had my chips catch a couple of times and a good dousing of salt put it out. Hell to clean up though.

 

[Ghery]

The Oriskany and the Forrestal fires ended up on the shipboard firefighting training films - mandatory training before every deployment. Very sobering stuff.

The Forrestal fire also shows up in EMC training. It is believed that an EMC problem caused the initial firing of ordnance that resulted in that mess.

 

[Skip Miller]

If he was having to apply brake just to taxi, how did he ever think he was going to keep the thing on the centerline during the takeoff roll?

More prop wash over the rudder. Easy to rationalize, even if wrong!

I would not have taken off with a burning brake assembly either!

-Skip

 

[RobertGerace]

We twin drivers have it easy. If we want to take off with a bad brake, or no nose-wheel steering, or heck, even without a rudder...we simply set differential power to point the nose where we want it to go. ;0

Yeah; that's the ticket.

I think I'll go find Kermit and ask him to ride along. I wouldn't want to try it without a CFI on board...

 

[Tom-D]

Salt does not put the fire out, Mag makes its own Oxy and can't be smothered, Salt contains the Mag stopping it from jumping around and spreading the fire, and salt absorbs the heat, until it burns its self out.

 

[Henning]

Salt does not put the fire out, Mag makes its own Oxy and can't be smothered, Salt contains the Mag stopping it from jumping around and spreading the fire, and salt absorbs the heat, until it burns its self out.

Correct, sorry my phrasing was poor, I should have probably said blankets the fire. Either way, you are correct, the fire burns itself out, the salt or the other purple powder (not Purple K, IIRC thats a regular ABC dry chem) is used for isolation and heat sink. Still a biych to clean up though. Had to replace the table once.

 

[Henning]

More prop wash over the rudder. Easy to rationalize, even if wrong!

I would not have taken off with a burning brake assembly either!

-Skip

I wouldn't have taken off either, but I damn sure would have grabbed the fire extinguisher and put it out, sheesh. But then again, I wouldn't have added opposite braking AND more power to taxi in a straight line either. Obviously a brake is binding, what did he think he was going to do on his take off roll?

 

[gismo]

If he was having to apply brake just to taxi, how did he ever think he was going to keep the thing on the centerline during the takeoff roll?

Not to mention on the subsequent landing!