Posted on 09/22/2005 3:42:28 PM PDT by SmithL
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
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).
I gotta admit to cheering the pilot while watching the landing. That was awesome!
Which is why I come here - to expose my ignorance and be corrected. I learn things that way.
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.
Greg, old chap, if your @$$ is on #8, I bet you'll think it's significant!
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.
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.
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.
Now that makes sense. Thank you.
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.
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
<< 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!]
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The issue is that it doesn't work as advertised.
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.