- Parking brake likely wasn’t fully released prior to taxiing for departure.
- Residual pressure in the braking system led to heat build-up and further application of the brakes.
- The flight crew’s swift decision to reject the take-off demonstrated their effective monitoring of the aircraft’s performance.
The flight crew of a Saab 340 rejected the take-off after experiencing handling and acceleration issues likely due to the parking brake not being fully released, an ATSB investigation details.
The Pel-Air operated Saab 340B, with 2 pilots, a cabin attendant and 25 passengers on board, was departing Flinders Island for Wynyard, Tasmania, as part of a multi-flight charter tour on 4 November last year.
As it accelerated, the aircraft veered to the left of the runway centreline and the crew detected a decrease in acceleration before rejecting the take-off.
Afterwards, the pilots observed significant tyre marks on the runway, a flat spotted tyre, and that all main landing gear tyres were flat.
“The ATSB investigation found that the parking brake handle had likely not been completely seated in the panel when released by the pilot, resulting in residual pressure remaining in the brake system,” ATSB Director Transport Safety Stuart Macleod said.
During the taxi to the runway, the residual pressure provided a partial application of the brakes, which allowed heat to generate within the brake system, resulting in further increased pressure and a continual increase in brake application.
“As the aircraft accelerated for take-off, this heat generation increased significantly, resulting in further application of the brakes.”
Since the occurrence, the operator has taken a number of safety actions to prevent a reoccurrence, including disseminating a Notice to Aircrew to its pilots with detailed information of the operation of the parking brake.
“This occurrence demonstrates the importance of completing routine tasks in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions,” Mr Macleod said.
“The outcome of this event, no passenger injuries and minimal aircraft damage, was a result of the flight crew’s effective monitoring of the aircraft’s performance and prompt action to reject the take-off when the expected performance was not achieved.”
