Important Observation About JetBlue Landing

News | September 21, 2005 | me

[HighWheeler]

After looking carfully at the replays of the JetBlue landing tonight, I noticed during landing that the nosegear flames and fires were pulsing on and off during the landing. The flames became quite fierce during the "roll"out of the aircraft, but would diminish and suddenly flame-on strongly again.

If you watch the landing carefully, you will see the times that the flames pulse on are the moments when the nose gear is scraping on the painted stripe on the runway.

This is very significant.

The FAA, airlines and manufacturers are always concerned with fire and especially fire avoidance and fire suppression. Fire is the number one enemy of ships, aircraft, and buildings. The fact that the tarmac paint could erupt in flames is a highly significant observation, especially where sources of flames are always a priority in accident investigation.

Imagine if there had been any available fuel source from the plane associated with this landing, leaking fuel, hydraulic fluid, or lubricant. The outcome could instead have been a significant disaster. The FAA and these airfields will need to find a far less flamable paint for these stripes.

[Loud Mime]

Having worked in a control tower for a few years, I must say that any emergency landing is exciting. Watching a Luftwaffe pilot eject from an F-104 was the real shocker. Our whole tower crew looked at each other for .5 secs and then got to work on the crash lines, etc....

[Larry Lucido]

My important observation is that it was the most boring emergency landing I've ever seen.

Good sex is exciting.

A good hockey game is exciting.

An good emergency landing should be boring as hell.

Now, granted, good sex during an emergency landing with the hockey game on, that's where it's at!

[hole_n_one]

Your keen observation deserves a bump BTTT.

It's plain as day......the stripes on that runway had an effect on the flare-ups, without question.

[Species8472]

I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't foam the runway

AFFF Firefighting Foam forms an aqueous film over the surface of flammable liquids and prevents the fuel from contacting oxygen in the air. It does nothing for sparks or flammable metal fires. In this case it would have made the runway slippery and lead to loss of aircraft control.

[RunningWolf]

The wheels are aluminum on these. However I don't think you can remove all fire when any metal is drug across concrete at 100mph+

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Now, granted, good sex during an emergency landing with the hockey game on, that's where it's at!

nah, the hockey game would be to much fluff, like putting to much gunk on a good steak.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Will we see terrorists dropping matches on our highways? "Hello 911, my street is on fire".

[RunningWolf]

It's likely the hub assembly of the wheel was aluminum alloy.

It is.

Most likely they did not foam the runway account the airplane still had all gear down and locked (even though the nose was cocked)
with all gear down you've got your brakes and thrust reversers, foam would be bad for braking and might flame out your engines
no engines no thrust reversers,
foam bad in this scenario.
JMO, what say you?

Wolf

[zipper]

Most likely they did not foam the runway account the airplane still had all gear down and locked (even though the nose was cocked) with all gear down you've got your brakes and thrust reversers, foam would be bad for braking and might flame out your engines no engines no thrust reversers, foam bad in this scenario.

They stopped nearly at the end of the 10,000 foot runway.

Methinks they used very little if any brakes (I think just a little differential braking to stay on centerline). And a smart thing, considering any forward weight transfer might cause the nose gear to dig in and collapse. The foam wouldn't have caused a flameout-- the nosewheel wouldn't have thrown up enough for the engines to injest causing a flameout, and the main gear is positioned behind the engine intakes.

Spoilers help reduce the rollout distance and were not affected.

[RunningWolf]

The nose gear could not dig in and collapse once it was down and locked, it rotates aft. Take a close look at the nose gear pictures and you might see what I'm talking about.

If there is foam on the runway the engines will suck it up fine even without the help of a nose gear.

Anyway a happy ending for the crew and passengers.

Wolf

[zipper]

It doesn't matter which way the nose gear pivots, if it had dug into the runway it would have broken at its mount to the airplane and folded toward the main gear. What did you think I meant by "collapse"?. Why do you think the crew took such care to lower it gently?

The engines are still mounted feet, not inches off the ground. Foam would have been a few inches high at the most. It takes a lot of water to flame out a jet engine-- they land in blowing snow and land and take off and land in driving rain all the time.

Anyway happy ending for the crew and passengers, agreed.

[RunningWolf]

I think you have been pulling my leg, good job..;)

but thats trivial to this incident.

the important thing is happy ending for the crew and passengers.

Wolf

[Jack Deth]

Any way you cut it, that was one of the smoothest, most grease landings on the books!

The pilot did a superb job, even though the nose tires smoked, and the wheels sparked. The nose tires didn't appear to blow. Plus the nose landing gear strut did not snap.

A flame would have to burn extremely bright and hot to ignite concrete. Even though most of the yellow or white paint used on Active Runway Center Lines are polymers with reflective materials added. The tires of landing aircraft do more wear and damage to the paint than flame and fire ever will.

Jack.

[HighWheeler]

Thanks, I learn something new everyday on FR

[azhenfud]

I suppose the tires being forced sideways at 100+mph wouldn't have been more the source of the fire/flame instead of the runway stripe?

Geesh!

[HighWheeler]

take a look at the video in post #6 of this thread then make your comment.

[HighWheeler]

take a look at the video in post #6 of this thread then make your comment.

[azhenfud]

After replays, I see that now. Good call! It appears prolly the plasticizer in the paint actually is a significant contributor to the flames.

Wow, what a landing!

[azhenfud]

"Thanks, I learn something new everyday on FR"

We ALL do, if we want...;-)

Thanks!