DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Procedure; Aircraft
On previous leg; the aircraft had multiple nuisance ANTI-SKID FAIL alerts while taxiing prior to takeoff. Alert only came on when setting the parking brake in line for takeoff. We complied with the QRH. After running the Anti-Skid Test; it passed the test and we moved to the MEL. Because the test passed; we concluded that we had a good system; decided to not use the parking brake while taxiing for takeoff; thus avoiding the re-occurrence of the alert. Our interpretation of the MEL was that if the alert remained; being a flagged item; we would turn back to the gate for maintenance action. After the successful completion of the Anti-Skid Test; and not setting the parking brake; we had no further alerts that leg of the flight. It was written up by the Captain in deferral log; and shown closed in the maintenance log upon arrival for the leg back to the departure airport. There was no incidence with the anti-skid on start up through takeoff on the leg return leg. Upon approach; while performing the before landing checklist; a level 2 ANTI-SKID R FAIL was annunciated. We were at about 1;500 FT AGL just inside final approach fix. The Captain; also the pilot flying; elected to execute a go-around. The release had us planned for 15;673 [LBS of] fuel at touchdown. We were 2;000 LBS heavy on cargo which increased our fuel burn by 200 LBS. We had about a; 18 minute delay with approach due to being stuck behind an Airbus for most of the route. Added up; we were right at 15;000 LBS at the time of the go-around; if not slightly below. Once safely on the climb to 3;000 FT; runway heading; as assigned by Tower; we contacted Approach for vectors to our next landing. We were assigned 09 and turned downwind. We then ran the QRH for the ANTI-SKID R FAIL with steel brakes. This time the alert did not remain extinguished. We decided to perform the recommended 50/EXT landing. Following the QRH procedure completion; we were turned to a base leg for the ILS to visual Runway 09. While configuring the aircraft for landing; we noticed that the fuel was 12;400 LBS at around 500 FT AGL. After landing on Runway 09; we rolled out the full length; used full reverse thrust (never above approximately 85% N1) and the Captain did not use the brakes until the turn off at the end. Clear of the runway; we turned the anti-skid off as per the QRH. We then taxied to our spot and parked. The Captain documented the ANTI-SKID R FAIL in the maintenance log. My concern is that we were planned to land with a nominal amount of fuel; without delays. Not factored into that calculation was the 18 minute en route/arrival delay nor the go-around for a maintenance issue. We touched down at about 1;000 LBS above emergency fuel; thanks to a helpful Approach Control; and timely reactions of the crew. Had Runway 09 not been available; we may have had a compounded incident with maintenance issues and emergency fuel issues. A more thorough inspection of the Anti-Skid System may have discovered the reason for the multiple alerts we encountered in flight and on the ground. Then again; it may not have. Anticipating this alert; given the multiple occurrences on the previous leg; and possibly getting the gear down earlier; could have given us more time to quickly run the QRH while level on extended final.
A DC-10 ANTI-SKID R FAIL alerted during taxi out; but extinguished and did not re-occur until the final leg upon landing gear extension. A go around was executed; the QRH complied with; and a normal landing followed.