Flight Details
Aircraft Type: Boeing 737-8U3 Operator: Garuda Indonesia Registration: PK-GUD Flight Number: GA288 Route: Soekarno–Hatta International Airport (CGK), Jakarta to Raja Haji Fisabilillah International Airport (TNJ), Tanjung Pinang Date of Incident: 16 April 2025 Total Occupants: 161 (passengers and crew) Weather Conditions: No adverse weather reported; visual meteorological conditions at the time of landing
Introduction
On 16 April 2025, a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-800 operating flight GA288 from Jakarta to Tanjung Pinang lost one of its nose tyres during the landing roll on runway 07L. The aircraft completed its rollout, vacated the runway without assistance, and taxied to the apron under its own power. Upon arrival at the stand, ground personnel observed that a nose gear tyre was missing. All 161 occupants remained unharmed. The aircraft remained grounded for approximately eight hours before departing for the return flight to Jakarta with a significant delay. The incident has been classified as a serious operational event involving landing gear component separation.
Sequence of Events
Flight GA288 departed Jakarta as scheduled and proceeded uneventfully to Tanjung Pinang. The approach into runway 07L was reported as stable, and the landing was conducted under clear weather conditions with no indications of crosswind or degraded runway performance.
Shortly after touchdown, the aircraft decelerated normally and exited the runway via a standard high-speed taxiway. It proceeded to taxi towards the terminal without incident. There was no indication from the flight crew or flight deck instrumentation of a malfunction during the landing roll or taxi phase.
However, upon parking at the stand, ground crew and ramp agents discovered that the aircraft’s nose gear assembly was missing one of the two forward tyres. Eyewitnesses, including passengers seated forward in the cabin, did not report feeling any significant vibration or jolt during rollout.
A passenger video posted shortly after the event appeared to show the dislodged tyre briefly rolling ahead of the aircraft during the deceleration phase, confirming that the tyre separated from the axle while the aircraft was still slowing on the runway.
Crew & Communication
The flight crew did not declare an emergency or make any abnormal communications during the landing or taxi phases. From the cockpit, there were no ECAM warnings or indications of gear faults, hydraulic failure, or structural deformation. The aircraft was taxied to the gate under its own power without deviation from normal procedures.
It is not yet clear if the crew was made aware of the missing tyre prior to shutdown, or whether it was only observed visually by ground personnel after arrival. Standard post-flight procedures would not necessarily reveal the missing tyre until an external inspection was conducted.
Cabin crew maintained normal operations and conducted standard arrival announcements and disembarkation protocols. No special procedures were initiated.
Aircraft Systems & Technical Analysis
The Boeing 737-800 is equipped with a twin-wheel nose landing gear assembly. The nose gear is fitted with two independently mounted tyres, and the aircraft can remain controllable with one tyre missing, provided the gear strut and remaining tyre remain intact.
According to Garuda Indonesia’s initial statement, the tyre “came off” after the aircraft had safely landed. The airline clarified that the incident was not due to a tyre burst, but rather a physical separation of the tyre from the axle. This suggests a possible wheel nut failure, bearing seizure, or under-torque condition during previous maintenance.
There was no reported damage to the nose wheel assembly, fork, strut, or adjacent aircraft structure. The missing tyre was recovered from the runway and will be examined for evidence of sheared bolts, failed locking mechanisms, or degraded material condition.
The aircraft remained on the ground for eight hours at Tanjung Pinang. The delay was attributed to technical inspection and the installation of a replacement tyre. The aircraft departed back to Jakarta with a delay of approximately seven hours and fifteen minutes.
Passenger Experience & Cabin Conditions
Passengers reported a normal landing sequence. No unusual vibrations or loud noises were reported during rollout. The cabin crew were unaware of the missing tyre during the landing or taxi, and no safety instructions were issued beyond standard post-landing procedures.
The incident was only brought to passengers’ attention after disembarkation, when media reports and video footage emerged showing the tyre rolling ahead of the aircraft after separation.
There were no injuries and no disruption to cabin services. Garuda Indonesia did not initiate any emergency response within the cabin, and no alternate transport was needed for the return leg once the aircraft was cleared for departure.
Emergency Response & Aftermath
The discovery of the missing tyre did not result in an emergency response during the flight. Airport fire and rescue services were not activated, and runway operations at Tanjung Pinang continued with minor delays due to debris retrieval and inspection.
The dislodged tyre was recovered intact and removed from the active runway. Airport maintenance teams conducted a debris check and surface inspection, confirming that no damage had been caused to the runway infrastructure.
Garuda Indonesia’s engineering team coordinated a tyre replacement on-site and conducted a full inspection of the nose gear assembly before releasing the aircraft for the return flight.
Investigation Status
The Indonesian Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has been notified and will oversee the airline’s internal investigation. No public safety investigation team has been dispatched, though the incident qualifies as a technical failure involving a critical system during ground rollout.
The following elements will form the basis of the technical inquiry:
Nose wheel assembly torque settings and component logs Maintenance history of the nose gear assembly Recent tyre changes or wheel swaps Inspection of wheel nut threads, locking mechanisms, and bearing condition Metallurgical analysis of the axle shaft and attachment points
If improper assembly or inspection contributed to the incident, the DGCA may issue advisories or procedural updates to ensure compliance with Boeing maintenance standards.
Root Cause & Contributing Factors
While the root cause has not yet been officially identified, initial evidence suggests a mechanical separation of the nose wheel tyre due to failure of retaining hardware or improper assembly. The fact that the tyre detached entirely—without signs of bursting—points to mechanical loosening, possible bearing failure, or improper locking pin installation.
Contributing factors may include:
Improper torque application during recent tyre change Incomplete securing of wheel fasteners Lack of post-installation inspection Progressive loosening during previous flight cycles
No environmental, operational, or runway condition factors contributed to the incident.
Safety Recommendations & Industry Impact
This incident may prompt the DGCA to review maintenance practices and training at Garuda Indonesia’s technical division, particularly relating to landing gear torque procedures, inspection intervals, and quality assurance checks.
If component fatigue or manufacturing defects are identified in the wheel hub or locking mechanism, Boeing may issue a service bulletin, though no such action has been taken to date.
For the industry at large, the incident reinforces the importance of secondary verification checks on critical hardware, even on routine nose gear assemblies, where asymmetrical loads or slight rotational imbalance can lead to component fatigue over time.
Conclusion
The tyre separation on landing experienced by Garuda Indonesia’s Boeing 737-800 at Tanjung Pinang underscores the importance of rigorous landing gear maintenance and inspection procedures. Despite the mechanical failure, the aircraft remained controllable, landed safely, and taxied under its own power, preventing escalation.
The calm handling of the situation by crew and the absence of secondary damage or injury reflect the resilience of the 737’s structural systems and the benefit of robust engineering tolerances. The investigation will now seek to identify whether human error, procedural oversight, or component wear triggered the separation event.
Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available information and reports at the time of writing. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, we cannot guarantee the completeness of the information provided.
If you are the rightful owner of any referenced content or images and wish them to be removed, please contact takedown@cockpitking.com.
