(former landing gear engineer) The tire failing right around rotation highlights that tire strength margins at that point are actually less than at touchdown: More load, more centrifugal stress, and less innate rubber strength as a consequence of rolling heat generation. Meanwhile, touchdown loads aren't as large as what they might seem with all that spinup smoke. For one thing, immediately after touchdown/spinup the wing is still supporting most of the aircraft's weight. A visual indication of that comes from watching how the shock strut typically strokes very little at touchdown. It's only after the spoilers come up that most (but still not all) of the weight is carried by the landing gear.
The reason that the gear didn’t retract is due to the ‘smoke’ that was visible after the burst. It is actually hydraulic fluid misting out of the lines after a line rupture probably due to tyre debris striking it. That is also why the main gear doors were extended for landing.
The NLG doors opened so the gear was selected up after liftoff, but most likely there was a hydraulic hose damaged and that was the origin of the visible vapor that appeared to be coming from the r/h engine but probably from the gear well, as the thrown tread usually does a fair bit of damage. Loss of pressure and fluid could be the reason for the MLG doors not opening at that time.
Wow, well caught and great video. I wonder why they did not immediately vacate the runway then stop on a taxi way for example. Would love to know from a pilot or someone at the airport the operational reason for this. Easier to evacuate on slides maybe if that was required??
The kinetic energy of a landing aircraft is quite high. An equivalent amount of power that the engines provide to accelerate an aircraft on takeoff has to be absorbed by the braking system on landing. If there has been some damage to the undercarriage, tyres, braking or associated systems, the energy being absorbed may not be dissipated as designed, and can result in a tyre and/or wheel fire. In some cases, if that subsequently develops, hot wheels can shatter violently projecting pieces out to the sides in iline with the axles. If that is a possibility, it would not be appropriate to have the aircraft just taxi in to the terminal, or even on to a taxiway (e.g. if the turning performance is uncertain or may exacerbate the problem), without examination and appropriate precautions. Notice the firefighting vehicles are in a good ready position, not in line with the axles, and not up very close to the aircraft (so that they can manoeuvr immediately to the exact point where they can best suppress the specific point where the fire poses a threat.) The firefighting is done primarily with large monitors, discharging very large quantities of foam to quickly create a fire free area to enable safe evacuation of the aircraft. The aim is not so much to put the fire out, but control and extinguish it in a way that protects the people involved from any fire and enable their safe escape. In accidents where some parts of the aircraft (without any passengers) have broken off and are burning, they may not be extinguished at all if they form no threat to people. The firefighting also needs to be done in a way that that does not skittle escaping occupants once out of the aircraft. The firefighting is a means to an end, the end being the rapid and safe evacuation/rescue of those at risk. In incidents where no fire is apparent, but wheels might be dangerously hot, Airport firefighters usually have thermal imaging cameras to assist in determining if there are any unusual hot spots. That along with observations and indications from the flight crew enable an informed decision about whether/when the aircraft can proceed safely to the arrival gate, or needs urgent or precautionary evacuation away from buildings and other aircraft. Evacuation involves its own risks (e.g. ankle injury to more vulnerable people) which need to be considered. In some cases an evacuation may use portable stairways and buses; (e.g if the aircraft is disabled, but if there is little or no risk to the occupants). If urgent the aircraft slides would be deployed by the flight and cabin crew And yes, I've been both a commercial pilot and an airport firefighter.
@@tacitdionysus3220 Interesting to hear about the considerations that go into evacuation decisions from a professional. From my background in landing gear engineering, I will say that most of the above is correct, though landing KE's are actually significantly lower than maximum takeoff KE's (I was sort of in the KE business). Also, "tires" should generally be substituted for "wheels" when talking about projectile issues. Not that a wheel can't fail, but it's typically an overheated tire which sends debris flying. In the case of a landing, overheating from self-generated flexure heat, but mostly heat from the brakes being conducted via the wheels. So though wheels do get hot, they don't usually fail, at least not since wheel flange strength requirements were upgraded in the 1980s. As the OP would be well aware of from their training but I'll mention here for general audiences, wheels incorporate "fuseplugs" (fusible plugs) designed to deflate a tire if its wheel gets hot enough after landing that the tire might fail. Those work most of the time, but not always. And they can't protect against sudden structural failure of the wheel.
Important counterpoint to the stereotype of pilots in developing countries being poorly trained. These guys did a great job of remaining cool under , must've been a terrible shock. Same goes for the cabin crew, too.
@@arandomperson920 Crew onboard the 787's are normally Asian based. The 787's are often operated by Jetstar Asia with pilots trained in Thailand and Indonesia. Both of which are borderline developing countries. Jetstar is not an Australian Airline, but Jetstar Australia, a branch of it, is.
@westernmaco that Jetstar plane belongs to the low cost division of Qantas, Jetstar Australia. There is Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Japan, which Qantas do have stakes in, but this particular 787 belongs to the Qantas owned, Australian division. The other divisions only have A320's and A321's.
Jetstar group, the group of which all the Jetstar divisions are under, originated in Australia from Qantas. Also, I don't think Singapore or Japan have any problems in terms of well trained crew.
Very odd that they didn’t raise the gear during departure. Standard Boeing drill is to raise the gear even if you sense a blown tyre through vibration or if you get EICAS TYRE PRESSURE. The gear doors being open for the landing then suggest that the hydraulics have failed. Not necessarily related to not raising the gear on take off either. Something odd going on here.
Gear was selected up bcs ~16 sec NLG doors cycle open & MLG truck posn for retraction. Thwarted by lack of C hyd press, leading to cascading issues for App & LDG. Nice job guys.
@@alanyoung8513 - standard Boeing procedure for the 777 to raise the gear following a tyre failure. I’m not sure about the 787 but my FCTM is a combined 777/787 one and it says it’s not a problem. Raise the gear and continue to the destination.
Sorry... but that's got to be one of the worst landings I've seen after a blown tyre !! He crunched the landing coming in. At the last millisecond the plane pitches to the right heavily, putting ALL the weight on the right main landing gear bogie for the first few seconds, the VERY ONE with the blown tyre !! I don't think cross wind could've done that at only 5 feet off the ground, especially as the approach was smooth as butter all the way to the runway, so I would rule that out. Then he "hops" it down the runway with the nose wheel making several attempts to touchdown !! wow... Planes blow tyres all the time and they are designed to land with them blown. There is enough safety margin built in from tyre manufacturers, and plane manufacturers, for the remaining tyres to cope with the extra load, so all he had to do was land it FLAT... !! That being said, you don't go out and deliberately push the remaining 3 tyres on that bogie to the limits by landing on that one only !! Still... all passengers safe, plane safe, so I guess job achieved "successfully".
With one hydraulic system fail and main gear door remain opened. The flight control response and aerodynamic characteristics was different. Don't judge if you were not there in the cockpit.
Wanker of the week. Did you see the tyre blow-out? Quite a serious issue. It once caused a concord to rupture a wing, catch fire and crash. Also, this is an aviation channel where people like to see planes take off and land.
Jep now more and more 787 type planes will show all soort off different failures in parts that already war out, but with poor quality it will wear out much more quickly. And faulty/bad installed parts like the Alaska door plug, if rumors are true they used rejected and damaged parts, they will wear out within years and eventually give up and at 40K feet a lock on a let say cargo door breaks, at 40K feet youbhave an explosive decompression what is like a bom in damage what can crash the plane if very important files, hydronic and Electrical bus lines are ripped off. Planes typically can fly for 30 years and after the prime years it go to cheap Asian/African airlines where the bad parts are potential so bad, all margins worn-out and with not the best engineering it will slip trough and I am afraid that we are going to see constant critical malfunctions on type of plane after this board of directors already living comfortably with their bonuses and their actions then will be visible too late.
@griffingoodman1055 I am not talking about only the 787 but Boeing in general. After Alaska a lot of things happened also a wheel flew of a 777 during initial climb after take-off. Now a DHL737 Cargo Crashed. You can dislike what you what, but my point is safety and with the bad safety culture and the bad production and installation of body parts of the 787 you will see at a later point more potentiial failures or worse. Technical Personell don't even want to fly on the 787 and what about whisle blowers and before the most important meeting he died in his hotel. Strange not? So there is a very big mounting problem with Boeing and you can say it is a single incident. It is one of too many. So dislike all what you want. And keep in mind when you fly you hope that Technical work has done properly. I don't see this happening with Airbus and maybe some mad Americans about Boeing but I can't help that.
@@LennardA320 Things break on Airbus products as well. Tires, fuel lines, vertical stabilizers... entire airplanes when even a highly-qualified crew can't keep track of what portion of the flight controls are actually under their control.
@marcmcreynolds2827 lot of parts need constant to be renewed. But I don't think that Airbus has a lot broken horizontaal stabilizers, broken fuellines, that would be critical faults and a not function horizontal stabilizer is a death sentence. So yes Parts have to be renewed. But Boeing is putting in parts that are not qualified from the beginning in the 787 program including quality controll. You can tell me al lot but the FAA Decides how many planes they can make each month. They have strict control now.
@@LennardA320 I'm not excusing anything about Boeing -- just pointing out that either airframer has had significant lapses over time. Right now with Boeing, it's manufacturing and management. Meanwhile, Airbus has its own ways of "shooting itself in the foot".
They don't fly when there's a problem, first priority is to get the plane on the ground ASAP. Notice they didn't put the landing gear up? Shredded tyre could have caused an issue getting the gear back down. Air safety is insanely strict and so it should be.
Assuming you're Australian, ask yourself this question: If the landing goes bad at the destination (eg adverse weather, gear collapse), where would you prefer to be in hospital? In Australia, close to your family, or thousands of kms away in a potentially sub-standard medical facility? What if they retracted the gear & the wheel was smouldering? Could it cause a fire? Speaking of, remember when Concorde blew a tyre on take off? That didn't end so well. Where's the best place to get the damage inspected & wheel replaced? What if the blowout damaged other parts of the airframe that could come apart at 30,000 feet? So many unknowns that go through the pilots mind. So they make it simple. Don't ask yourself any of those questions. Just communicate with ATC & land asap.
![ENGINE FAILURE Sparks Fire at Sydney Airport; Qantas 737 Forced into Emergency Landing [ATC audio]](/img/n.gif)
(former landing gear engineer) The tire failing right around rotation highlights that tire strength margins at that point are actually less than at touchdown: More load, more centrifugal stress, and less innate rubber strength as a consequence of rolling heat generation. Meanwhile, touchdown loads aren't as large as what they might seem with all that spinup smoke. For one thing, immediately after touchdown/spinup the wing is still supporting most of the aircraft's weight. A visual indication of that comes from watching how the shock strut typically strokes very little at touchdown. It's only after the spoilers come up that most (but still not all) of the weight is carried by the landing gear.
The reason that the gear didn’t retract is due to the ‘smoke’ that was visible after the burst. It is actually hydraulic fluid misting out of the lines after a line rupture probably due to tyre debris striking it. That is also why the main gear doors were extended for landing.
Doctor Bear, it is amazing that you were there and got such good, clear footage of the entire event!
Super catch of the whole incident.Great video mate
Awesome catch! May I feature this takeoff in one of my next episodes? Of course with a link back to your original video. All the best to you!
I love your vids I always watch them
Thanks mate for asking. Please go ahead. All the best!
@ Cool, thanks! Do you by chance have the raw footage somewhere without the slow motion?
@@3MinutesofAviationi love your vids hope you know that
@@3MinutesofAviation Yes, I do. I will put the raw one as a private video and send you the link. Probably one hour later.
That gust just before touch down was a real pucker moment given it was onto the bad leg
my dad was the first officer on this flight
What did he recount on the flight?
Awfull landing btw lol
I'm glad your dad is safe
Nice catch
Wow! Great work! ✈️ 👍🏼
The aircraft manufacture is NOT to blame for tire burst incidents like this
Exactly. It's like buying Michelin tyres and blaming Toyota when they burst.
Nice pick!!
Hey, what is the focal length of the lens you used here?
Not the usual cattle truck tyre blowout.
did anyone notice the nearest wing tip as it appears not to have the upsweep like the far wing
Good thing wide body jets have buggy landing gears.
Gnarly, great catch
The NLG doors opened so the gear was selected up after liftoff, but most likely there was a hydraulic hose damaged and that was the origin of the visible vapor that appeared to be coming from the r/h engine but probably from the gear well, as the thrown tread usually does a fair bit of damage. Loss of pressure and fluid could be the reason for the MLG doors not opening at that time.
Nose job!
No issue they are designed for that
Keep in mind, this is what caused the Concorde to crash.
No..debri on runway
@@stivi739 ... and fuel tanks down close to the runway which lacked extra protection in even the most vulnerable areas.
I thought this happened today because i saw a jetstar dreamliner fly over me with its gear down. Might’ve been the same plane
where were you?
@AndyPat239 Sydney
ok I am from Sydney where abouts?
@AndyPat239 strathfield
@@joßh-1ok thanks i gather the plane was circulating for quite a while over/around Sydney. I don't live there anymore.
Hey I used part of ur video for a short if u mind I can make it private so tell me
What wrong with gear tilt? The gear tilt look like A350, but it's 787-8.
Nothing's wrong with it. On all B787 variants and the A350-1000 they tilt backwards and on the A350-900 they tilt forwards
Lack of maintaince i would presume
It was only flat on the bottom 😢
why the door hatch stays open ?
guessing if the tyre is on fire they don't want to bring that into the plane
@@iwaswrongabouteveryhthing Do you even know what a door hatch is ?
@derser541 I assume the landing gear door hatch,
am l mistaken?
educate me
Looks like a patch work of maintenance its got a white nose cone and white engines while the body is grey
TYPICAL UNION LABOR WORK. ASK WHO DID IT NO BODY KNOWS. TALK TO THE UNION BOSS. WHERE IS THE UNION BOSS...Vacation in Cambodia
Well done boys
Wow, well caught and great video. I wonder why they did not immediately vacate the runway then stop on a taxi way for example. Would love to know from a pilot or someone at the airport the operational reason for this. Easier to evacuate on slides maybe if that was required??
The kinetic energy of a landing aircraft is quite high. An equivalent amount of power that the engines provide to accelerate an aircraft on takeoff has to be absorbed by the braking system on landing. If there has been some damage to the undercarriage, tyres, braking or associated systems, the energy being absorbed may not be dissipated as designed, and can result in a tyre and/or wheel fire. In some cases, if that subsequently develops, hot wheels can shatter violently projecting pieces out to the sides in iline with the axles. If that is a possibility, it would not be appropriate to have the aircraft just taxi in to the terminal, or even on to a taxiway (e.g. if the turning performance is uncertain or may exacerbate the problem), without examination and appropriate precautions.
Notice the firefighting vehicles are in a good ready position, not in line with the axles, and not up very close to the aircraft (so that they can manoeuvr immediately to the exact point where they can best suppress the specific point where the fire poses a threat.) The firefighting is done primarily with large monitors, discharging very large quantities of foam to quickly create a fire free area to enable safe evacuation of the aircraft. The aim is not so much to put the fire out, but control and extinguish it in a way that protects the people involved from any fire and enable their safe escape. In accidents where some parts of the aircraft (without any passengers) have broken off and are burning, they may not be extinguished at all if they form no threat to people. The firefighting also needs to be done in a way that that does not skittle escaping occupants once out of the aircraft. The firefighting is a means to an end, the end being the rapid and safe evacuation/rescue of those at risk.
In incidents where no fire is apparent, but wheels might be dangerously hot, Airport firefighters usually have thermal imaging cameras to assist in determining if there are any unusual hot spots. That along with observations and indications from the flight crew enable an informed decision about whether/when the aircraft can proceed safely to the arrival gate, or needs urgent or precautionary evacuation away from buildings and other aircraft. Evacuation involves its own risks (e.g. ankle injury to more vulnerable people) which need to be considered. In some cases an evacuation may use portable stairways and buses; (e.g if the aircraft is disabled, but if there is little or no risk to the occupants). If urgent the aircraft slides would be deployed by the flight and cabin crew
And yes, I've been both a commercial pilot and an airport firefighter.
@@tacitdionysus3220 Interesting to hear about the considerations that go into evacuation decisions from a professional. From my background in landing gear engineering, I will say that most of the above is correct, though landing KE's are actually significantly lower than maximum takeoff KE's (I was sort of in the KE business). Also, "tires" should generally be substituted for "wheels" when talking about projectile issues. Not that a wheel can't fail, but it's typically an overheated tire which sends debris flying. In the case of a landing, overheating from self-generated flexure heat, but mostly heat from the brakes being conducted via the wheels. So though wheels do get hot, they don't usually fail, at least not since wheel flange strength requirements were upgraded in the 1980s.
As the OP would be well aware of from their training but I'll mention here for general audiences, wheels incorporate "fuseplugs" (fusible plugs) designed to deflate a tire if its wheel gets hot enough after landing that the tire might fail. Those work most of the time, but not always. And they can't protect against sudden structural failure of the wheel.
I flew on Vh VKH in 2019 on the EXACT same flight path
I’ve been on that exact plane but different route
Bali
Your lucku to capture the scene!
Why is the video sped up?
Important counterpoint to the stereotype of pilots in developing countries being poorly trained. These guys did a great job of remaining cool under , must've been a terrible shock. Same goes for the cabin crew, too.
? i am confused. Australia is not a developing country.
@@arandomperson920 Crew onboard the 787's are normally Asian based. The 787's are often operated by Jetstar Asia with pilots trained in Thailand and Indonesia. Both of which are borderline developing countries. Jetstar is not an Australian Airline, but Jetstar Australia, a branch of it, is.
@westernmaco that Jetstar plane belongs to the low cost division of Qantas, Jetstar Australia. There is Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Japan, which Qantas do have stakes in, but this particular 787 belongs to the Qantas owned, Australian division. The other divisions only have A320's and A321's.
@@arandomperson920 Right, well I doubt OP, knew that. I didn't either. Most are Thailand based crew.
Jetstar group, the group of which all the Jetstar divisions are under, originated in Australia from Qantas. Also, I don't think Singapore or Japan have any problems in terms of well trained crew.
the gear turned into an a350 gear lol
more like a 767
I'd hope that the airport operations had cleared up the rubber debris on the runway before this plane landed....
Didn't you watch the video? Stupid question
Obviously, they did...Also, the plane would have spent time in the air to burn/drop fuel as it would have been well over the landing weight.
0:53 perhaps you skip this part.... and you can see all the planes line up for take off here 1:09, because the runway was closed
@@힐만94 Thanks, I hadn't realized that's what they were doing. You're correct.
Positioning of the fire crew?, surely could have been closer .
normal day for jetstar
absolutely, Jetstar saving people.....
Not the usual cattle truck tyre blowout.
OMFG
Very odd that they didn’t raise the gear during departure. Standard Boeing drill is to raise the gear even if you sense a blown tyre through vibration or if you get EICAS TYRE PRESSURE. The gear doors being open for the landing then suggest that the hydraulics have failed. Not necessarily related to not raising the gear on take off either. Something odd going on here.
unless needed for climb performance, NEVER retract a damaged undercarriage. Reference NationAir DC-8 Jeddah July 11, 1991
Gear was selected up bcs ~16 sec NLG doors cycle open & MLG truck posn for retraction. Thwarted by lack of C hyd press, leading to cascading issues for App & LDG. Nice job guys.
@@alanyoung8513 I am not a pilot, but I knew that before hand and was thinking of the Jeddah incident as well
@@alanyoung8513 - standard Boeing procedure for the 777 to raise the gear following a tyre failure. I’m not sure about the 787 but my FCTM is a combined 777/787 one and it says it’s not a problem. Raise the gear and continue to the destination.
@@EdOeuna But it had a hydraulic leak as a result of the burst tire causing damage to the line.
Those gears not looking too right looks like A350 gear on a 787
Sorry... but that's got to be one of the worst landings I've seen after a blown tyre !! He crunched the landing coming in. At the last millisecond the plane pitches to the right heavily, putting ALL the weight on the right main landing gear bogie for the first few seconds, the VERY ONE with the blown tyre !! I don't think cross wind could've done that at only 5 feet off the ground, especially as the approach was smooth as butter all the way to the runway, so I would rule that out. Then he "hops" it down the runway with the nose wheel making several attempts to touchdown !! wow... Planes blow tyres all the time and they are designed to land with them blown. There is enough safety margin built in from tyre manufacturers, and plane manufacturers, for the remaining tyres to cope with the extra load, so all he had to do was land it FLAT... !! That being said, you don't go out and deliberately push the remaining 3 tyres on that bogie to the limits by landing on that one only !! Still... all passengers safe, plane safe, so I guess job achieved "successfully".
Get out of here mate 😂 you have no clue! How many hours on heavy jets do you have ?
@@markparis6149 🤣🤣🤣
i agree, you can see the right hand side flaperon deflecting upwards significantly before touch down, probably an overcorrection or nerves kicking in.
With one hydraulic system fail and main gear door remain opened. The flight control response and aerodynamic characteristics was different. Don't judge if you were not there in the cockpit.
agreed, that was atrocious
I must have missed all the drama. All I saw was a plane takeoff and landing. (yawn)
Wanker of the week. Did you see the tyre blow-out? Quite a serious issue. It once caused a concord to rupture a wing, catch fire and crash. Also, this is an aviation channel where people like to see planes take off and land.
@@nickj1663 Don't reply to these idiots mate. They want the attention.
Jep now more and more 787 type planes will show all soort off different failures in parts that already war out, but with poor quality it will wear out much more quickly. And faulty/bad installed parts like the Alaska door plug, if rumors are true they used rejected and damaged parts, they will wear out within years and eventually give up and at 40K feet a lock on a let say cargo door breaks, at 40K feet youbhave an explosive decompression what is like a bom in damage what can crash the plane if very important files, hydronic and Electrical bus lines are ripped off.
Planes typically can fly for 30 years and after the prime years it go to cheap Asian/African airlines where the bad parts are potential so bad, all margins worn-out and with not the best engineering it will slip trough and I am afraid that we are going to see constant critical malfunctions on type of plane after this board of directors already living comfortably with their bonuses and their actions then will be visible too late.
What a stupid comment. This was a tyre that burst, nothing new and not something that is exclusive to the 787 / boeing
@griffingoodman1055 I am not talking about only the 787 but Boeing in general. After Alaska a lot of things happened also a wheel flew of a 777 during initial climb after take-off. Now a DHL737 Cargo Crashed. You can dislike what you what, but my point is safety and with the bad safety culture and the bad production and installation of body parts of the 787 you will see at a later point more potentiial failures or worse. Technical Personell don't even want to fly on the 787 and what about whisle blowers and before the most important meeting he died in his hotel. Strange not? So there is a very big mounting problem with Boeing and you can say it is a single incident. It is one of too many. So dislike all what you want. And keep in mind when you fly you hope that Technical work has done properly. I don't see this happening with Airbus and maybe some mad Americans about Boeing but I can't help that.
@@LennardA320 Things break on Airbus products as well. Tires, fuel lines, vertical stabilizers... entire airplanes when even a highly-qualified crew can't keep track of what portion of the flight controls are actually under their control.
@marcmcreynolds2827 lot of parts need constant to be renewed. But I don't think that Airbus has a lot broken horizontaal stabilizers, broken fuellines, that would be critical faults and a not function horizontal stabilizer is a death sentence. So yes Parts have to be renewed. But Boeing is putting in parts that are not qualified from the beginning in the 787 program including quality controll. You can tell me al lot but the FAA Decides how many planes they can make each month. They have strict control now.
@@LennardA320 I'm not excusing anything about Boeing -- just pointing out that either airframer has had significant lapses over time. Right now with Boeing, it's manufacturing and management. Meanwhile, Airbus has its own ways of "shooting itself in the foot".
Well it is for budget travellers so all maintenance is done on a tight budget
Nothing to do with it 😂
Give me a break..can happen to any aircraft
are you being paid to talk shit or are you really doing this for free?
Interesting the flight returned to Sydney. Why would it not just continue to its destination and land there? Don’t need wheels in the air.
It's a pretty long flight all the way to Thailand about 8 hours.
They don't fly when there's a problem, first priority is to get the plane on the ground ASAP. Notice they didn't put the landing gear up? Shredded tyre could have caused an issue getting the gear back down. Air safety is insanely strict and so it should be.
@@CRFLAus thanks. Very good explanation to my question
@@kunnai1189 thanks
Assuming you're Australian, ask yourself this question: If the landing goes bad at the destination (eg adverse weather, gear collapse), where would you prefer to be in hospital? In Australia, close to your family, or thousands of kms away in a potentially sub-standard medical facility?
What if they retracted the gear & the wheel was smouldering? Could it cause a fire?
Speaking of, remember when Concorde blew a tyre on take off? That didn't end so well.
Where's the best place to get the damage inspected & wheel replaced?
What if the blowout damaged other parts of the airframe that could come apart at 30,000 feet?
So many unknowns that go through the pilots mind. So they make it simple. Don't ask yourself any of those questions. Just communicate with ATC & land asap.
Honestly the Jetstar 787 fleet is held together with bubble gum and spit. They should never have bought them.
Really? It was only a burst tyre 😂
Yea jetstar prob using second hand tiers from quantas
People who add a "u" to Qantas don't deserve to make jokes.
@@danielspark101 People who remove a "u" from after a "q" don't deserve to name airlines.
@marcmcreynolds2827 Not all "q" words have to follow with a "u". Also, Qantas is an acronym, so your dimwitted comment is invalid.