Narrative:

I asked my first officer to check the performance to see if we could accept the tailwind on runway 18 and make the ILS approach. He checked flaps 40 wet runway and the tailwind via the pdcs and said we could accept the tailwind. We asked for and were cleared for an ILS approach via the transition from the VOR (at this point we were inside of the 12 DME arc). We made 2 attempts to contact tower to no avail. I don't know what the problem was. Over kuskim on the ILS tower finally answered and reported wind 300 at 17 KTS. I asked my first officer if that still fits and he replied it would be close. I made a quick mental calculation using 45 degrees as half the velocity on the tail, and since we had more than 45 degrees angle agreed we were in limits. We had acquired the runway visually at about 3.5 mi out. On short final I could see the runway was in fact dry and we received a wind update of 330 at 13 KTS. The touchdown was on center on touchdown point at VREF40. We touched down softer than normal and I extended the speed brakes manually. I used higher than normal reverse thrust (1.6 EPR) and normal braking and we turned off just past the runway 29 intersection. The tower made a comment about the nice landing with a 15 KT tailwind. We were both at a loss at how he came up with that figure from what was reported to us. On the walk around inspection the first officer discovered missing tread from the #2 main landing gear tire. I inspected tire and found the retread had come loose from half of the tire face outboard exposing threads from the under tire. We discussed the possibility that the downwind landing could have caused the tire damage. We concluded it had not due to soft touch down and normal braking. We advised the tower to look for debris on the runway, and they sent a truck out. Later they reported finding no debris. I don't know if the tire damage occurred on landing or our takeoff in anc. I stopped the boarding process and called seattle maintenance control. He wanted me to look for damage to hydraulic lines, wing surface, and flaps. I reported no damage to hydraulics, but a palm sized dent to the trailing edge flap 1/5 ft outboard of the fuselage. Our normal maintenance person was unavailable, but a qualified mechanic from local FBO was located. He had previously worked for air carrier B on their medium large transport. The mechanic conferred with sea maintenance control then I showed him the tire and the dent in the flap. He felt he would be able to get us going again. The aircraft was taxied onto a ramp and the tire changed. The flaps were cycled to allow a complete inspection of the flaps. The mechanic told me he did not consider the flap dent to be of any consequence, and could sign it off as being minor. The mechanic called seattle maintenance control and reported what had been done and what he had found. When they were done I talked to sea maintenance control about the log entries. He said that the tire change was complete, but not to make an entry regarding the flaps. He did not feel the flap dent was significant and making an entry regarding the flaps would unnecessarily delay the aircraft in bet. I asked the local mechanic if he agreed, and he said he did. I made the entry on crew walkaround damage to the #2 main landing gear tire noted. On arrival in anc the mechanic that met the aircraft said the flap dent would require repair. I now feel I should have made an entry regarding the flap in the logbook in bet.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LNDG BET, MLG EXCEEDS TAILWIND LIMIT. ALSO, ACFT DAMAGED WAS NOT WRITTEN UP IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK.

Narrative: I ASKED MY FO TO CHK THE PERFORMANCE TO SEE IF WE COULD ACCEPT THE TAILWIND ON RWY 18 AND MAKE THE ILS APCH. HE CHKED FLAPS 40 WET RWY AND THE TAILWIND VIA THE PDCS AND SAID WE COULD ACCEPT THE TAILWIND. WE ASKED FOR AND WERE CLRED FOR AN ILS APCH VIA THE TRANSITION FROM THE VOR (AT THIS POINT WE WERE INSIDE OF THE 12 DME ARC). WE MADE 2 ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT TWR TO NO AVAIL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. OVER KUSKIM ON THE ILS TWR FINALLY ANSWERED AND RPTED WIND 300 AT 17 KTS. I ASKED MY FO IF THAT STILL FITS AND HE REPLIED IT WOULD BE CLOSE. I MADE A QUICK MENTAL CALCULATION USING 45 DEGS AS HALF THE VELOCITY ON THE TAIL, AND SINCE WE HAD MORE THAN 45 DEGS ANGLE AGREED WE WERE IN LIMITS. WE HAD ACQUIRED THE RWY VISUALLY AT ABOUT 3.5 MI OUT. ON SHORT FINAL I COULD SEE THE RWY WAS IN FACT DRY AND WE RECEIVED A WIND UPDATE OF 330 AT 13 KTS. THE TOUCHDOWN WAS ON CTR ON TOUCHDOWN POINT AT VREF40. WE TOUCHED DOWN SOFTER THAN NORMAL AND I EXTENDED THE SPD BRAKES MANUALLY. I USED HIGHER THAN NORMAL REVERSE THRUST (1.6 EPR) AND NORMAL BRAKING AND WE TURNED OFF JUST PAST THE RWY 29 INTXN. THE TWR MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE NICE LNDG WITH A 15 KT TAILWIND. WE WERE BOTH AT A LOSS AT HOW HE CAME UP WITH THAT FIGURE FROM WHAT WAS RPTED TO US. ON THE WALK AROUND INSPECTION THE FO DISCOVERED MISSING TREAD FROM THE #2 MAIN LNDG GEAR TIRE. I INSPECTED TIRE AND FOUND THE RETREAD HAD COME LOOSE FROM HALF OF THE TIRE FACE OUTBOARD EXPOSING THREADS FROM THE UNDER TIRE. WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE DOWNWIND LNDG COULD HAVE CAUSED THE TIRE DAMAGE. WE CONCLUDED IT HAD NOT DUE TO SOFT TOUCH DOWN AND NORMAL BRAKING. WE ADVISED THE TWR TO LOOK FOR DEBRIS ON THE RWY, AND THEY SENT A TRUCK OUT. LATER THEY RPTED FINDING NO DEBRIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THE TIRE DAMAGE OCCURRED ON LNDG OR OUR TKOF IN ANC. I STOPPED THE BOARDING PROCESS AND CALLED SEATTLE MAINT CTL. HE WANTED ME TO LOOK FOR DAMAGE TO HYD LINES, WING SURFACE, AND FLAPS. I RPTED NO DAMAGE TO HYDS, BUT A PALM SIZED DENT TO THE TRAILING EDGE FLAP 1/5 FT OUTBOARD OF THE FUSELAGE. OUR NORMAL MAINT PERSON WAS UNAVAILABLE, BUT A QUALIFIED MECH FROM LCL FBO WAS LOCATED. HE HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR ACR B ON THEIR MLG. THE MECH CONFERRED WITH SEA MAINT CTL THEN I SHOWED HIM THE TIRE AND THE DENT IN THE FLAP. HE FELT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET US GOING AGAIN. THE ACFT WAS TAXIED ONTO A RAMP AND THE TIRE CHANGED. THE FLAPS WERE CYCLED TO ALLOW A COMPLETE INSPECTION OF THE FLAPS. THE MECH TOLD ME HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE FLAP DENT TO BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE, AND COULD SIGN IT OFF AS BEING MINOR. THE MECH CALLED SEATTLE MAINT CTL AND RPTED WHAT HAD BEEN DONE AND WHAT HE HAD FOUND. WHEN THEY WERE DONE I TALKED TO SEA MAINT CTL ABOUT THE LOG ENTRIES. HE SAID THAT THE TIRE CHANGE WAS COMPLETE, BUT NOT TO MAKE AN ENTRY REGARDING THE FLAPS. HE DID NOT FEEL THE FLAP DENT WAS SIGNIFICANT AND MAKING AN ENTRY REGARDING THE FLAPS WOULD UNNECESSARILY DELAY THE ACFT IN BET. I ASKED THE LCL MECH IF HE AGREED, AND HE SAID HE DID. I MADE THE ENTRY ON CREW WALKAROUND DAMAGE TO THE #2 MAIN LNDG GEAR TIRE NOTED. ON ARR IN ANC THE MECH THAT MET THE ACFT SAID THE FLAP DENT WOULD REQUIRE REPAIR. I NOW FEEL I SHOULD HAVE MADE AN ENTRY REGARDING THE FLAP IN THE LOGBOOK IN BET.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.