Narrative:

I was the PIC and pilot flying during a night RNAV approach into a non-towered airport. The AWOS reported wind from 180 at 8 knots. Given that this was within our company's and aircraft limitations; we elected to perform a straight-in approach. We considered a circling approach to land on runway 16; but decided that due to high terrain near the airport and the nighttime condition; the overall safer action would be to land straight-in.using approach/VNAV modes; I flew the approach with the autopilot on; with the field in sight well in advance of the final approach fix. We configured normally and executed the before landing checklist. Our airspeed was 120; as per company sops; and the first officer made all required callouts. I slowed to vref earlier than typical because of the slight tailwind condition. Below 500 feet I asked the first officer to continue monitoring and calling out our airspeed in reference to computed vref. Airspeed increased slightly in the final 100 feet; but was still within company and aircraft limits.the airplane touched down on the center line; somewhat farther than planned. I applied brakes and they appeared momentarily normal. I called 'good brakes; flaps 55'; and the airplane began to depart from normal steering. As I continued to attempt braking the airplane veered right and I had the sensation of the brake effectiveness deteriorating rapidly. It felt very much like a brake/anti-skid failure I had encountered previously. It quickly reached the point where I felt there was no other option but to use the emergency braking system. I pulled the handle; the airplane continued to veer right; but eventually slowed and stopped on the runway.once at a stop; we assessed the situation; there was no apparent damage; and our passengers were not harmed. We then realized that the airplane would not move with application of power and speculated that a tire had blown. We decided to shut down engines and deplane the passengers to a waiting vehicle. Upon opening the cabin door we saw that both main tires had blown.in hindsight; when the airspeed increased slightly in the final 100 feet of the approach; that was probably the time to initiate a go-around. I did not elect to for two reasons: conditions were within company and aircraft limitations; and I have successfully completed similar/identical approaches in the past. That being said; my suggestion is to be very willing to perform a go-around. Even a relatively small increase in speed is worrisome; particularly when operating close to tailwind limits.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE-525 landed apparently normally at a CTAF airport but both main tire flattened during the landing. A brake or anti-skid anomaly is suspected.

Narrative: I was the PIC and pilot flying during a night RNAV approach into a non-towered airport. The AWOS reported wind from 180 at 8 knots. Given that this was within our company's and aircraft limitations; we elected to perform a straight-in approach. We considered a circling approach to land on runway 16; but decided that due to high terrain near the airport and the nighttime condition; the overall safer action would be to land straight-in.Using APPROACH/VNAV modes; I flew the approach with the autopilot on; with the field in sight well in advance of the final approach fix. We configured normally and executed the Before Landing Checklist. Our airspeed was 120; as per company SOPs; and the first officer made all required callouts. I slowed to Vref earlier than typical because of the slight tailwind condition. Below 500 feet I asked the first officer to continue monitoring and calling out our airspeed in reference to computed Vref. Airspeed increased slightly in the final 100 feet; but was still within company and aircraft limits.The airplane touched down on the center line; somewhat farther than planned. I applied brakes and they appeared momentarily normal. I called 'Good brakes; flaps 55'; and the airplane began to depart from normal steering. As I continued to attempt braking the airplane veered right and I had the sensation of the brake effectiveness deteriorating rapidly. It felt very much like a brake/anti-skid failure I had encountered previously. It quickly reached the point where I felt there was no other option but to use the emergency braking system. I pulled the handle; the airplane continued to veer right; but eventually slowed and stopped on the runway.Once at a stop; we assessed the situation; there was no apparent damage; and our passengers were not harmed. We then realized that the airplane would not move with application of power and speculated that a tire had blown. We decided to shut down engines and deplane the passengers to a waiting vehicle. Upon opening the cabin door we saw that both main tires had blown.In hindsight; when the airspeed increased slightly in the final 100 feet of the approach; that was probably the time to initiate a go-around. I did not elect to for two reasons: Conditions were within company and aircraft limitations; and I have successfully completed similar/identical approaches in the past. That being said; my suggestion is to be very willing to perform a go-around. Even a relatively small increase in speed is worrisome; particularly when operating close to tailwind limits.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.