Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LA emergency landing is at least seventh involving sideways gear
AP ^ | 9/22/5 | LESLIE MILLER

Posted on 09/22/2005 3:42:28 PM PDT by SmithL

WASHINGTON -- There have been at least seven cases in which the front wheels on Airbus A320s became stuck in a sideways position, forcing pilots to make emergency landings.

No one was hurt in any of the landings, the latest of which occurred Wednesday night in front of a national television audience when a JetBlue plane touched down in Los Angeles amid smoke and sparks as the front tires disintegrated.

The incidents, unnerving to be sure, are nonetheless considered anomalies and have not prompted federal authorities to take action beyond ordering airlines to follow Airbus instructions for replacing rubber seals on the gear.

With about 2,500 Airbus A320s in operation worldwide, the number of incidents involving jammed nose gear is not significant, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Greg Martin said Thursday.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airbus; flight292; jetblue; landinggear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: Antonello
I whole-heartedly agree! Significance increases in direct ratio to proximity.
41 posted on 09/22/2005 4:35:41 PM PDT by Fatuncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
The fact is, the A320 performed very well yesterday

Yes, it did.

And so did the aircrew.

The wife commented, "look, the nose strut is on the white line! That plane never moved left or right!"

LVM

42 posted on 09/22/2005 4:36:55 PM PDT by LasVegasMac ("God. Guts. Guns. I don't call 911." (bumper sticker))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
Can someone please tell me why they didn't burn feul by flying to New York as scheduled?

With the landing gear down? That would have been one rough ride! Furthermore, the drag caused by the gear would probably have eaten up their fuel at a very considerable rate. I doubt if the plane could have made the flight due to excessive fuel consumption. (just guessing here, but I think that it's a pretty good guess).

43 posted on 09/22/2005 4:37:14 PM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: agincourt1415
Ya gotta be impressed with the Pilot, straight down the centerline of the runway. Not an inch off centerline at all.

I gotta admit to cheering the pilot while watching the landing. That was awesome!

44 posted on 09/22/2005 4:39:51 PM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
The ignorance on this thread is breathtaking.

Which is why I come here - to expose my ignorance and be corrected. I learn things that way.

45 posted on 09/22/2005 4:44:47 PM PDT by Fatuncle (Iffen I wuzz not iggnerent, I woodn't need to be eddiecated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
TSB spokesman was most cavalier about this.

So, it's just seven incidents in how many flights?

I am in shock at his comments.

If he or a member of his family were on this flight perhaps he'd see things differently.

46 posted on 09/22/2005 4:50:31 PM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Are you sure you are familiar with what over-center means?

Yes. My point is that this system is very similar to other aircraft designs.

I look at this mechanism every time I do a walk around my aircraft. I am quite familiar with it.
47 posted on 09/22/2005 4:51:11 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
Can someone please tell me why they didn't burn feul by flying to New York as scheduled?

The law requires that with such an instance, you must land at the 'nearest suitable' airport. A case could be made for going a lot of other places other than LAX - but not to fly to JFK.
48 posted on 09/22/2005 4:53:01 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
...the number of incidents involving jammed nose gear is not significant, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Greg Martin said Thursday.

Greg, old chap, if your @$$ is on #8, I bet you'll think it's significant!

49 posted on 09/22/2005 4:53:06 PM PDT by TXnMA (Iraq & Afghanistan: Bush's "Bug-Zappers"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling

I fly on the Airbus A320 on the average about once each month on USAIR. No problems so far. It's actually been a comfortable and reliable ride. I do have my doubts now though.


50 posted on 09/22/2005 5:00:44 PM PDT by Log
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp; csmusaret
Can someone please tell me why they didn't burn fuel by flying to New York as scheduled?

The A320 Airbus, that was involved in the incident yesterday, did not have the ability to dump fuel, it was built that way. I don't know if that is the way all A320's are built, but it might be. And I think there may be several Airbus A3XX models that can't dump fuel.

It might be that Airbus Aircraft are flown allot over Europe, and there is no place to dump fuel in an emergency, or EU environmental regulations forbid it. Where if an something over the US near the coastline, the airline as the ability to dump fuel in the ocean. That is why yesterday, the plane had to fly around for several hours to burn off fuel.It would be interesting to see how if the same feature is employed in the A380 (500+ passenger) planes. How long will the plane have to circle to burn off the excess fuel, before it could safely land.

51 posted on 09/22/2005 5:06:00 PM PDT by rerat0120
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rerat0120
It might be that Airbus Aircraft are flown allot over Europe, and there is no place to dump fuel in an emergency, or EU environmental regulations forbid it. Where if an something over the US near the coastline, the airline as the ability to dump fuel in the ocean. That is why yesterday, the plane had to fly around for several hours to burn off fuel.It would be interesting to see how if the same feature is employed in the A380 (500+ passenger) planes. How long will the plane have to circle to burn off the excess fuel, before it could safely land.

Should have been written as:

It might be that Airbus Aircraft are flown allot over Europe, and there is no place to dump fuel in an emergency, or EU environmental regulations forbid it. If something like this happened over the US, near the coastline, the airline has the ability to dump fuel in the ocean, is why Boeing's (& Md's were) are built with this capability, in most or all their large aircraft. That is why yesterday, the plane had to fly around for several hours to burn off fuel. It would be interesting to see how if the same feature is employed in the A380 (500+ passenger) planes. How long will the plane have to circle to burn off the excess fuel, before it could safely land.

52 posted on 09/22/2005 5:17:04 PM PDT by rerat0120
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

Now that makes sense. Thank you.


53 posted on 09/22/2005 7:12:23 PM PDT by csmusaret (Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

Primarily, because it would have landed in the dark when it got to JFK. Then there would have been the additional problem of having an aircraft at altitude and cruising speed with its nose wheel hanging down. No, better to circle LAX and land the aircraft there.


54 posted on 09/22/2005 7:24:04 PM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: safisoft; csmusaret
Can someone please tell me why they didn't burn fuel by flying to New York as scheduled? The law requires that with such an instance, you must land at the 'nearest suitable' airport. A case could be made for going a lot of other places other than LAX - but not to fly to JFK.

The is also besides the fact that you really wouldn't be ably to fly from LAX to JFK with the gear stuck down (the drag) and also flight restricted to say a max of 200 knots?

What I don't get is not being able to dump fuel.. what if you had a flight emergence when you had to get down asap and no time to burn fuel off, conversely if the contention is that landing with a full load in an A320 is a non issue why the long orbit to burn fuel off... somebody seem to think the lighter the fuel load the safer the landing

55 posted on 09/22/2005 7:44:00 PM PDT by tophat9000 (This bulletin just in:"Chinese's Fire Drill's" will now be known as "New Orleans' Hurricane Drill's")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten; SmithL

<< OK, so lemme get this right. The tires retract so that they're "flat" against the belly of the aircraft, right. Then when they extend, they don't rotate 90 degrees so they're in line with the center axis of the aircraft?

Methinks that is a pretty serious design flaw . >>

Like every other aspect of the Euro-peons' Neo-Soviet, the entire airbus boondoggle is a pretty serious design flaw.

Or: "Methinks that is a pretty serious design flaw" = Terabitten's Law = Murphy's Law.

[And O'Allen's Law states that Terabitten and Murphy are Optomists!]


56 posted on 09/22/2005 10:55:09 PM PDT by Brian Allen (I fly and am therefore incapable of envy! -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac
Methinks you have not been around avaition much. Fairly common application. Some even rotate 360 degrees when opening / closing.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The issue is that it doesn't work as advertised.

57 posted on 09/23/2005 5:44:18 AM PDT by Terabitten (God grant me the strength to live a life worthy of those who have gone before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson