JetBlue A320 landing at LAX

[Dushan]

With landing gear problems...

[Dream Land]

Reporter said they couldn't retract the landing gear, happened at my airline when the engineer used his own gear pin without a flag and of course no tech log entry. Don't quite understand why they are circling unless there is some other type of situation not explained, if they're trying to get down to MLW it will take sometime.

Dream Land::confused:

[RRAAMJET]

Not trying to 2nd-guess this crew - I'm sure they're doing everything they can, but....

Having had this very same situation happen to me in the RAF, with a severly screwed-up landing gear geometry, I might have been tempted to take this A-320 to Edwards AFB - plenty of run-off room there if the jet goes crazy-Ivan, like mine did. Plenty of time to get extra ARFF there from Palmdale, Goerge, Ont, etc.
The dirt might slow the jet better, too.

Will the 320's FBW let you hold the nose off, BTW?

BEST OF LUCK, GUYS... :ok:

[barit1]

If he were in a time-critical situation he would land ASAP. He's in no hurry, just trying to get the weight down as much as he can.

[SaturnV]

From the MSNBC cable channel:
The National Transportation Safety Board Web site reported that a similar incident with an A320 occurred on an America West flight in February 1999 in Columbus, Ohio. The agency found the cause was a failure of the external o-rings in the nose landing gear steering module. The plane landed safely.

They are interviewing a pilot from America West who had a similar situation on a B-727 in 1988. However, they apparently landed without realizing the nose gear was askew. He recalled a lot of vibration, so much that instruments were not readable, a lot of dust in the cockpit, and a big black stripe down the center of the runway.

[Farrell]

They will be landing on 25L

18 miles out and will attempt an approach now apparently.

He's just been handed over to the tower.

[Rollingthunder]

Nice job those guys. Need a couple of tyres and wheels from stores.

[barit1]

Good job - no apparent trauma. But a long skid mark!

[rotated]

No fire or other damage apparent.

Except the centerline will need a repaint!
Amazing.

[HOSS 1]

Sure was a bright flame during the skidding. Does anyone know if the wheels are magnesium?

[GotTheTshirt]

Hoss,
The fire was probably the oil in the oleo burning.
As the bottom of the shock strut grinds away the oil comes out under pressure.

The whole thing was live here on TV. The flying side was prefect but is it me or did the first fire truck seem to take a long time ??

[DC Meatloaf]

Must have been interesting watching the coverage from inside the plane (JetBlue has DirecTV at every seat). Would the crew have shut it off?

[SaturnV]

Superb job by the crew!!

During the landing, MSNBC had as the commentator, Captain Al Haynes, who commanded United 232. Captain Haynes' DC-10 had a lot more wrong with it when it made its landing attempt at Sioux City Iowa in 1989.

Meatloaf, MSNBC reported that the TVs were turned off. Employees of NBC on the plane said that the television was turned off three to four minutes before landing, along with the air conditioning. Prior to that, the passengers were watching the progress of the flight on the cable news channels.

By my rough count, the first airport fire engine was alongside the plane 22 seconds after the plane stopped.

[ChewyTheWookie]

Hats off to the guys/girls in the front, very nicely done.

I noticed they didn't use the reversers or spoilers when they touched down. Can someone i the know please explain why not?

[tvpilot]

no reverse to keep weight back off the nose

[barit1]

Actually, I think reversers might have taken a little load off the nose gear. Maybe not - they're below the center of mass so would create a nose-down moment.

But there were other considerations - maybe they wanted to avoid Foreign Object Damage to the engines (from nosegear debris). With that long a runway I doubt they were in a huge hurry to stop.

[CSilvera]

FYI, the ABC news radio aviation commentator stressed that this is what happens when you have good pilots and don't skimp on training. Kind of with an implication that some other airlines don't.

[Safety Guy]

This has happened to the A320 3 or 4 times before. It starts with a shock absorber which does not extend, and the gear won't retract. It can be accompanied by a nosewheel steering fault which results in the wheels being offset by 90 degrees. The reason for no reverse is that the fault results in a dual Landing Gear Control & Interface Unit failure, which disables the reversers. Not sure why the spoilers didn't deploy.

[Roundout]

It's the second occurrence in JetBlue & would you believe it - the same skipper was in command! Old hat to the guy but he must have been chanting "why me again?"

Well done - great job!

[Dani]

I just read this thread hours later and cannot believe how you all could take part in this frantic media hype. I thought that ppruners are immune against blown up media sensations.

Did you expect the blood running out of the plane when it crashed? :E:

Here some calm thoughts:
Fuel dumping. No short haul aircraft has this ability. Only long haul, they have to take so much fuel, that their max take-off weight is considerably higher than their max landing weight. An A320 can land with its maximum take-off weight, but you should run through a long checklist (verify runway is long enough aso). The same with B737, MD80, F100...

landing with abnormal gear configuration: Airbus checklist recommends not to arm GND SPLRS (although only for main landing gear problems), which means, they will not extend. It might give an additional kick during touchdown which could worsen the situation. But that's pure speculation from my side. The same reasoning might have been behind not using reversers: Land it soft and keep the nose wheel as long as possible in the air, until horizontal stabiliser no longer effective. Then you have the least force on the nose wheel.

Dani

[7p3i7lot]

here is a report from a previous and I believe identical incident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00227&key=1


NYC99IA062
On February 16, 1999, at 1602 Eastern Standard Time, an Airbus A-320-231, N628AW, operated by America West Airlines as flight 2811, received minor damage when it landed at Port Columbus International Airport (CMH), Columbus, Ohio, with the nose wheels rotated 90 degrees. There were no injuries to the 2 certificated pilots, 3 flight attendants and 26 passengers. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the scheduled passenger flight which had departed from Newark (EWR), New Jersey, about 1404. Flight 2811 was operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan conducted under 14 CFR Part 121.

According to statements from the flight crew, flight 2811 was uneventful until the landing gear was lowered prior to landing at CMH. After the landing gear was extended to the down-and-locked position, the flight crew received indications of dual landing gear control and interface unit (LGCIU) faults.

The flight crew entered into a holding pattern and attempted to troubleshoot the faults; however, they were unable to determine the source of the problem. The flight crew then prepared for a landing at CMH, with nosewheel steering and thrust reversers inoperative due to the faults. During the final approach, at the flight crew's request, the control tower performed a visual check of the landing gear, which revealed that the nosewheels were rotated about 90 degrees.

The flight crew then initiated a missed approach and declared an emergency. The cabin crew was notified of an impending emergency landing, and the cabin and passengers were prepared for the landing. The captain initiated the approach, and described the touchdown as soft. The airplane stopped on the 10,250-foot-long runway with about 2,500 feet of runway remaining. Damage was limited to the nose landing gear tires and rims.

The captain reported that after landing, he noticed smoke was drifting up on the right side of the airplane. He said he attempted to contact the control tower and confirm if a fire was present, but was unable due to frequency congestion. He then initiated an emergency evacuation using the left and right side overwing exits.

A review of the air/ground communications, as recorded by the Columbus Air Traffic Control Tower, did not reveal a congested frequency when the emergency evacuation was initiated.

According to Airbus, nose wheel steering was hydraulically actuated through either the cockpit tiller and/or the rudder pedals.

A post-incident visual inspection of the nose landing gear assembly revealed no anomalies. The steering control module was replaced, and a subsequent functional check of the nosewheel steering was successful.

The steering control module was a sealed unit, opened only during overhaul, with no specified overhaul time, and had accumulated 3,860 hours since last overhauled on March 3, 1998. It was shipped to Messier-Bugatti, the manufacturer, and examined under the supervision of the French Bureau Enquetes Accidents (BEA). The examination revealed that the external hydraulic O-ring seals on the steering control module's selector valve were extruded (distorted out of the seal's groove). A small offset was found in the steering control valve.

Airbus further reported that while the offset would have been measurable, it would not have been noticeable under normal operations. Additionally, during landing gear extension, the brake and steering control unit (BSCU) would have been energized and hydraulic pressure would have been directed toward the steering servo valve. The BSCU would have then commanded a small rotation of the nose wheel to check for proper movement. Any disagreement between the commanded position and actual position of the nose wheel would have deactivated the nose wheel steering. However, if hydraulic pressure had bypassed the steering control valve, there would have been continued pressurization to the servo valve, and because of the servo valve's inherent offset, in-flight rotation of the nose wheels.

Procedures existed for removal of hydraulic pressure from the steering control module. However, once the nosewheel strut had deflected 90 degrees, the centering cam would have been rotated to a flat area, and would have been incapable of overriding the 3,000 PSI hydraulic system, and returning the nose wheels to a centered position.

Documents from Airbus indicated there have been three similar incidents in which A320 airplanes landed with the nose wheels rotated about 90 degrees. Examination of the steering control modules on two of the airplanes revealed extrusion of the selector valve's external seals similar to that found on N628AW. Airbus had attributed the extrusion failures to the lack of a backup seal or the effects of aging on the seals. As a result of these incidents, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1197 on October 8, 1998, to recommend replacement of the external seals on the steering control module's selector valve on A320 and A321 airplanes within 18 months of the SB's issuance.

At the time of the incident, neither the French Direction General de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), had adopted the service bulletin as an airworthiness directive. The operator was not required to comply with the service bulletin, and had not complied with it.

On March 24, 1999, the DGAC issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) 1999-124-129(B) to require compliance with the SB. On December 17, 1999, the FAA issued AD 99-23-09 which was based upon the French AD, with a 12 month time of compliance for modification of the nose wheel steering control valve.

[Salzinger_FOO]

Congrats to the crew indeed..

Impressive photo already available:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L

Wonder how hard it was to keep centre line...

Salz

[747FOCAL]

I just had a chance to watch the whole video. The person flying really did a text book job. Setting down very light. Keeping the nose off the ground for as long as possible. right down the center line...... Excellent job.


innuendo - Dont be a cheaky monkey. You know what I meant.

[Pushpak]

Job well done, the first airport fire engine arrived alongside the plane about 22 seconds after the plane stopped, i thought they would be there much faster as the emergency was planned and well co-ordinated..??

[NigelOnDraft]

NW through 90 degrees catered for in the 'Book 3' (Abnormals). Associated potentially with NW Steer Fault and/or L/G Shock Absorber Faults. Sole advice is "During Landing, delay nose wheel touchdown for as long as possible" as was nicely demonstrated.

Interesting lack of 'drama' or 'drills' in Airbus' advice here, and definitely in contrast to 'L/G in Abnormal position'. I think we need to keep in context here that the 'emergency' was heightened by being on Live TV. Seems from the history above a fairly regular A32x problem...

[bobdbuilder]

Same thing happened on an Air Malta A320 a few years back. If i remember correctly, the nose wheel twisted to 90 degrees off during takeoff roll before V1. Crew rejected takeoff safely. Seems like this is a re-occurring event on 320s.

Well done to Crew.

bobdbuilder

[catchup]

Airbus checklist recommends not to arm GND SPLRS (although only for main landing gear problems), which means, they will not extend.

To my knowledge, they will extend when reverse is selected....

With spoilers armed, they will extend with thrust lever idle.

regards

[A4]

If one of the main gear is not extended, then the spoilers should not be armed. This is because at touchdown they will deploy and KILL the lift on the wings resulting in a very rapid, hard contact of the wing with no gear onto the runway. This was demonstrated a few years back by an MD-80 (I think) which had this problem. There was some excellent footage taken from behind the aircraft which showed a nice touchdown, followed by spoliers, followed by the wing SLAMMING onto the runway as the lift was destroyed. If you keep the wing producing lift, you can hold it off the deck with aileron as long as possible and "cushion" the blow.

If this is the third recorded instance of a nose gear at 90°, I hardly call it a recurring problem with the Airbus :hmm:

Not seen the footage of the JetBlue, but glad everyone is ok.

A4

Catchup - You are correct, but for a landing with abnormal gear both engines are shutdown at touchdown - so reverse isn't an option. For a nose gear problem, the QRH says shutdown both before the nose gear makes contact.

[Semaphore Sam]

All credit to the crew...but,

This 90 degree nosewheel skew seems to have happened more than once or twice. Why have these nosegears not had some re-design in place long ago? If it happens twice, the relevant gear should be withdrawn and the weakness removed. Any future such incident, if it results in loss of life, should result in negligent manslaughter charges against agencies responsible for maintenance oversight, and Airbus; or are we to rely on superb crew response, and luck, each time Airbus's faulty design results in this same situation? It's just possible next time, the nosegear will skew the aircraft over on its side, a wing will dig in, and fire with resulting loss of life will result. Reminds me of the DC-10 cargo door blindness over many incidents, finally with the Turkish Air disaster with loss of all on board. Actually, corporate murder.

[Swedish Steve]

Two weeks ago we had an A319 here at ARN.
When the crew started to taxy away from the gate, the nose wheels turned to 90 deg and the plane stopped. The BSCU (Brakes and Steering Control Unit) had ceased to control.
We checked it all out and reset the computor and off it went.
On return to base they replaced the computor. No damage done.

[swh]

Interesting replies above ....

The QRH checklist calls for no autobrake to be used, also for both engines to be shut down once the mains are on, and for reverse not to be used.

This will explain the lack of spoilers and reverse thrust, and as to why they could hold the nose up for so long.

Engine pumps continue to supply hydraulic pressure for 30 seconds after first engine shutdown.

Ground spoilers are not armed for MAIN L/G, armed for nose gear.

[Old King Coal]

Geesh what a load of hype !!..... and from which even the BBC are not immune, e.g. using phrases such as: Lucky escape
Miraculous ending
Terrifying flightIt's a fair bet that they concoct this stuff using The Lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator (http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html) !

[Dani]

I'm sorry to insist, but this is really a minor incident. Of course, crew did a great job, no doubt about that.

Otherwise... - loss of lives?! hard to keep centerline???

Please, dear ppruner, keep it on the realistic side:

An airplane with an unstearable NW will stay steady because of the inertia of the trajectory. Where should the nosewheel drift to? Left or right? If it's 90! The tyre will be converted into fumes within seconds, then you "roll" on the rim. Metal against concrete produces sparkes, and this ignites. No, the fuel tank will not explode :rolleyes:

Also nose wheel collaps is not a catastrophic failure per se. We remember the Iberia MD-87 in Madrid (?) with a complete retracted nose wheel. Soft landing. A few cratches on the lower fuselage.

I agree this outcome depends heavily on the performance of the flying crew. But it's not soooo difficult to do a soft touchdown, keep the nose in the air and let it go down softly.

Apologies again to disagree to you all - it has to be said.

Dani

[babyboeing400]

and one of the news reporters said....the captain told the mayor , "There was only one thing that i did wrong in this whole incident,i was 6 inches off the centre-line" WTF?:rolleyes:

[King Pong]

Saw an interview with a passenger on CNN who stated that the passengers were watching their own aircraft on live TV via the seat back TV screens

[Ziggy]

Not suggesting anything, just asking to learn something.....

Apparantly they disembarked the passengers using steps. Off course we don't have the whole picture but I wouldn't have been surprised if they evacuated.

Any thoughts on that?

On the America West Airlines flight 2811 in 1999:

"He said he attempted to contact the control tower and confirm if a fire was present, but was unable due to FREQUENCY CONGESTION. He then initiated an emergency evacuation...."

You declare a mayday and you still have to deal with frequency congestion?????

[ILS27LEFT]

This could have turned nasty, I watched it live on TV and I have a few questions:

1) Why Fire Units were so slow to go close to the aircraft whilst they had been waiting for this aircraft for a very long time and they should have known pretty well where the aircraft would have stopped? It looked like a very long time on TV.

2) Why firemen did not cool the front nose gear as soon as aircraft stopped, avoiding the risk of fire? Nothing was done.

3) Why the runway was not foamed? Would this have reduced friction and risk of fire? Why wasn't done?

4)Why pilots decided not to evacuate? Was this agreed with firemen? This would make sense.


I am still astonished by the fact that the runway was left dry and hard for such a planned and expected landing.

Thanks.

[acm]

If you foam the runway, it's gonna be a bit sliperry and it makes the access difficult for firecrew.
I think we don't foam the runway anymore in some countries ?

[big fraidy cat]

Further article from CNN Internet news ... pilot's name: Scott Burke.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/22/airliner.emergency.ap/index.html

[ILS27LEFT]

I think this incident with foam on the runway would have been less "risky"...yes slippery runway, but this would have meant less friction between landing gear, tyres and asphalt which is exactly what I would have wanted if I was the pilot!
I did not really like to see those flames and debris, you never know, I would have preferred no flames, no fire, no heat down there.
Just in case!

Well done to the crew anyway.

Does anybody know if foaming is decided by pilot or fire authority?

[G-CPTN]

Foaming is not necessary:-
"Ann Decrozals, an Airbus spokeswoman at the aircraft manufacturer's headquarters in France, said the A320 was designed to be able to land with front wheel problems."

Hardly worth declaring an emergency then?:rolleyes:

[arewenearlythereyet?]

what I would have wanted if I was the pilot!You weren't and aren't a pilot so why continue pontificating about it? It is standard procedure these days not to foam a runway because it has been researched that it doesn't help in any way except to impede the fire services.

Foam isn't going to soften the impact or prevent heat being generated or even stop a fire if fuel spills onto it after it has been laid down. :rolleyes: In what expert capacity do you consider it to be "less risky" if they'd used foam? Please do tell us so that the sarcasm can be dropped.

Why would you want to "lessen the friction between the tyres and the runway"? :rolleyes: You mean you'd want the aircraft to roll on and on even further whilst grinding down what was left of the nosegear stump? Just engage your brain before coming out with such rubbish and pomposity with suggestions that if you were the pilot blah blah. You obviously aren't a pilot and you definitely weren't the pilot on the Jet Blue flight so spare us the idiotic sermonising. :*

[SaturnV]

Ziggy, the NTSB report on the Columbus incident, summarized earlier in this thread, stated that a review of the tape of the tower communications indicated there was no frequency congestion.

ILS27LEFT, if the fire engines were trailing the landing aircraft at a distance of 300-400 meters and traveling at 50 km per hour, by my rough arithmetic, it would take them about 20 seconds to pull abreast of the stopped aircraft, and thats about how long it took for them to reach the aircraft.

[BexyBear]

Video link here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?checkedBandwidth=bb&nbram=1&checkedMedia=ram&news=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4270142)

[acm]

ILS27 Left, your question about foaming the runway was not silly. In 2002 or 03 an MD80 Iberia landed safely in Geneva without nose gear and, if I remember correctly, the runway was foamed. It seems that not foaming the runway for this sort of incident is a very recent policy.

Well done to the crew anyway. I wish I could stay on the centerline like that !

[CosmosSchwartz]

Some people are never happy! Can't believe questions are being asked of the fire service.

"Why did they not get there sooner?" Because they have to remain clear of the runway until the aircraft has passed them, then they get to enter the runway and chase. As the aircraft is doing 140mph or so when it lands they have a bit of work to do to catch up. The fire service must get to any point of the airport within 60 seconds in an emergency, they got there in just over 20 so job well done.

As for cooling the nose gear, that's exactly what should be done if you want to see a small, fairly spectacular explosion. If the wheels are on fire then powder would be used to put the fire out, but leaving them to cool naturally is the safest solution.

As for foam, maybe if the main landing gear had failed, but why reduce the friction? You want to stop asap, not increase the LDR by contaminating the runway.

The crew and fire service did the job by the book, as far as the TV pictures show. Congratulate on a job well done and stop trying to pick holes!:ok:

[visibility3miles]

Watching a CNN interview a passenger now, who says the crew moved passengers and baggage to the back of the plane to reduce the weight on the nose wheel.

Great job!!!

P.S., The pax said they cut off the live TV ten minutes before landing.

[LNAV VNAV]

The same reasoning might have been behind not using reversers: Land it soft and keep the nose wheel as long as possible in the air, until horizontal stabiliser no longer effective. Then you have the least force on the nose wheel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe that any rearward force that is heigher than the main wheel axis (including reverse thrust), will generate a pitch up moment, i.e. a decrease in the nose wheel force. I think that once the nose wheel touches the ground, reversers and spoilers should be used (for nose gear problems only).

Nevertheless well done to the crew. And quite spectacular!

[Wino]

Foam does not reduce titanium sparks. Modern aircraft have titanium in them so it doesn't help anymore... It does impede rescue efforts and make a mess of an evacuation however. You can lose people under it etc...

As to downwards motion.

The center of mass of the aircraft in the forward vector is somewhere around the main cabin floor. And rearward vector below that point (like the engines) will cause a net pitch down moment while the whole assembly is in motion.

However, that is negligbable.


I suspect it had more to do with steering issues should one engine have fodded out and the other contineud to produce thrust, or the reversers open assymentrically.

Also deployment of spoilers produces and abrupt pitching moment, not something you are looking for when trying to be smooth with the nosewheel.

Cheers
Wino

[M609]

I think we don't foam the runway anymore in some countries ?

There are other considerations as well, the time it takes to refill the fire trucks with water and foam. At LAX I guess this not that big a problem, since they probably have a lot of trucks. At Norwegian airfields the general policy is to keep the agent in the trucks, to have full quantity available when the a/c is on the ground. (I think they need approx 30 min to refill 3 trucks to CAT 8 here)

[Noise_Jammer]

Best quote from the interweb so far:

"The pilot finally brought the plane down, back wheels first. "

Nice one. Thanks CNN

Jammer

[Hairy Mary]

Good job, nobody hurt, well done and all that.
With that out of the way, I do think that the TV news made a meal of this. Why is anyone surprised that the plane stayed on the centreline of the runway? It would be different if the gear was turned and locked 10 degrees from straight but at 90 degrees it surely has little influence over directional control.

What is the lump on the roof just aft of the wing on this machine?
I suspect it has something to do with sat com but couldn't they tidy it up a bit? It looks like the roof vent on my caravan.

[swh]

LNAV VNAV,

If you had bothered to read my previous post or the QRH you would realise the reason for not using reverse is thats the QRH checklist procedure.

The QRH procedure is written in simple frenglish, seems to have translated into "simple american" for the crew of this flight.

Every action taken by this crew is in the QRH, with the exception of firing the fire bottles into the engines and apu, and the emergency evacuation.

:rolleyes:

[visibility3miles]

Ziggy
Apparantly they disembarked the passengers using steps.

Errr, maybe they couldn't taxi to the gate?

Sorry, deleted this post earlier, but in retrospect it still stands, even if it's a flippant comment.

[Rollingthunder]

The "lump" is for the posh PTV onboard.

[Hairy Mary]

Thanks Thunder.

Something else I noticed; The captain exited the airplane, walked down the steps and shook hands and conversed for a few moments with the emergency people. I don't know about you, but curiosity would compel me to go straight over to the landing stump to have a look. I guess he's a cool guy.

[LNAV VNAV]

swh

I haven't flown the A320 for a while and I dont remember what it says, so I can't argue.

It seems strange though that the qrh doesn't diferentiate for nose and main gear. The force on the nose gear would be upwards and reducing the load on it ,so I would expect that for nose gear problems it would have you use reverse thrust after nose gear touchdown. Still if you say so...

[West Coast]

"Why Fire Units were so slow to go close to the aircraft whilst they had been waiting for this aircraft for a very long time and they should have known pretty well where the aircraft would have stopped?"

Dunno about other countries but here they set up alongside most of the taxiways along the length. You say pretty well known where it would stop. What if something had happened in the touchdown zone, almost a mile and a half from where it stopped. The approach is sensible. 20 something seconds is what I gauged the first responder to the aircraft. Reasonable to me.


"Why pilots decided not to evacuate? Was this agreed with firemen?"

Why evacuate? The emergency was essentially over once they came to a stop. Why break a bunch of ankles and scare the crap out of the pax by doing an emergency evac when it wasn't warranted.

[Halfnut]

Hummmm Do you think this incident at LAX will expose jetBlue's outsourcing of maintenance to San Salvador using the $2 an hour locals vs. keeping their major aircraft inspections and maintenance in the USA?

[Jet II]

Do you think this incident at LAX will expose jetBlue's outsourcing of maintenance

Well if its the same component that failed as on previous instances of this type then it wouldn't matter who did the maintenance as the steering control module is a sealed unit.

[Bus429]

More codswallop!Where do some of you get these ridiculous notions from?:yuk:

[737er]

Check this out:


NTSB Narrative/ A320 Nosewheel Problems (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00227&key=1)

[Flying Mech]

About 6 or 7 years ago a Transaer A320 reg EI-TLI had the exact same occurence closing Dublin Airport for a few hours as it blocked the main runway . The NLG assy was replaced. Airbus said to replace both LGCIU's and BSCU's and send the old ones to Airbus for Investigation There were no faults on the PFR for Lgciu or Bscu and all bite tests were ok +when new leg fitted to A/C steering test ok. So the boxes were replaced anyway and sent the old ones away to France. Never did hear the outcome of the Airbus Investigation although very soon after that Lgciu's & Bscu's were modded to a higher dash no part no so although Airbus didn't admit liability in the design of the system you can draw your own conclusions

[frostbite]

Took me back over 40yrs when I worked at Southend Airport almost a carbon copy situation with a (DC8?).

No pax and they shoved everything movable to the rear. The nose wheel turned 90 degrees on touching 2/3rds down the runway.

Biggest excitement was the police Austin Westminster which chased it down the runway, making a huge whooshing sound.

[DownIn3Green]

For some others re: evac....I made a 2 engine approach and landing in a 727 freighter at LAX some years ago...as a matter of procedure, the LAX fire crews followed us down the taxiway after landing all the way to Imperial...the whole time, the fire/rescue commander was in contact with us via the ground vhf freq, and here I learned something very interesting: At LAX, the fire/rescue trucks have infrered (sp?) sensors that scanned our whole a/c, and the fire/rescue commander relayed that everything (breaks, engines, fuselage, etc) were within normal parameters i.e.-no fire, ergo, no panic....

Well done to the crew for a true "non" incident...

BTW, as can be seen from the videos, the centerline is reserved for professionals...

[sabenaboy]

If, just like the America west crew in 1999, the Jetblue crew received indications of dual landing gear control and interface unit (LGCIU) faults, the thrust reversers were not used because they would have been inoperative.

[BenThere]

Nice job to the crew. Sticking it on centerline knowing millions are watching is not to be dismissed lightly.

Did anyone notice though:

It looked like touchdown was well down the runway, on the other side of the paint. Maybe intentional as the equipment was at the departure end.

Also, wouldn't it have been a good idea to jack the nose. The integrity of the strut had to be suspect and the pax were still onboard.

And I noticed the firetruck did not seem to have hoses at the ready to extinguish any fire that might have ensued from hot metal and hydraulic fluid coming together.

Can't argue with success, though.

[fmgc]

Does anybody know what indications the flight crew had on the flight deck, how did they know that they had a problem?

If it was a double LGCIU failure how would you know that the nosewheel wasn't straight? Just because you have a double LGCIU failure doesn't mean that you have a problem with the landing gear.

[cactusbusdrvr]

With a dual LGCIU failure and a NWS fault you need to verify the position of the nosewheel by doing a flyby. That is what the AWA crew did in CMH. The Jet Blue crew evidently had that information. They (the AWA crew) also evacuated because they did have some smoke and there was frequency congestion with the local controller working tower and ground control freqs. That is why we now get a discrete frequency to talk to the CFR trucks (Crash, Fire, Rescue).

These guys did a great job, their procedures were the same the AWA crew used, move people aft, hold it off, etc. I don't care how much you practice, doing it for real will still get the heartrate up.

Jet Blue is lucky with the state of the industry being what it is. They have a lot of very experienced crew who were at UAL, USAir, and so on for a long time before they jumped to Jet Blue.

[LuckyStrike]

Two thumbs up for the perfect and professional handling of an emergency situtaion by the flight crew, tower, rescue crew...

Just a question out of curiosity, how about a locking event with an angle less than 90 degress, say 30 or 45 degrees? Will that cause any complications and result in a drift or will the inertia overcome that and eat the rubber up like it was in this case?

[G-CPTN]

>Just a question out of curiosity, how about a locking event with an angle less than 90 degress, say 30 or 45 degrees? Will that cause any complications and result in a drift or will the inertia overcome that and eat the rubber up like it was in this case?

*********************************

Having read the analysis report (further up) about another similar failure, I don't believe that such a possibility would occur. The 'failure to return' is because the mechanism goes 'over-centre' (at the 90degrees position). Lesser angles would still be controllable.

"However, once the nosewheel strut had deflected 90 degrees, the centering cam would have been rotated to a flat area, and would have been incapable of overriding the 3,000 PSI hydraulic system, and returning the nose wheels to a centered position."

So I'm afraid it's all or nothing . . .

However the possibility of a programmed nose-wheel hold-off automatic landing should be a distinct possibility, especially as this fault has happened several times before, maybe Airbus could add a button for this . . .

[Dani]

LuckyStrike, the device is engineered as such that you will always have about 90° in this failure to avoid any other unwanted intermediate angle.

For your question what would happen if it would stuck at another angle, I'm not sure, but my feeling tells me that with high speeds, the intertia would be stronger and destroy the tyre first, before the tyre gets grip and steers the nose of the aircraft to one side. As soon as the tyre is gone, you wont have any major sideways movement anymore - the aircraft goes straight.

We are talking of no crosswind of course.

Dani

[alert5]

Howard Plagens, the lead investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board in the JetBlue Flight 292 case, told reporters that it was at least the seventh time that an A320 has landed with a twisted front landing gear.

He added that the plane was last service on Tuesday, in New York, where technicians replaced a sensor that measures distance to the ground.

Aviation sources say one such incident involved a JetBlue A320 in New York in 2002. Another involved a United Airlines Airbus A319 in Chicago.

An America West Airlines A320 in February 1999 landed at Port Columbus International Airport with a twisted landing gear. America West have failed to replace a part in the landing gear as requested by Airbus. The replacement was made mandatory after the incident.

http://www.radarvector.com/2005/09/earlier-landing-gear-problems-in.html

[scameron77]

As we were all sitting at home in Long Beach watching everything unfold on cable TV, we did notice a few things that stood out:

1) 4 firemen standing at the top of the gantry, not really doing anything except getting in the way.

2) 1 more fireman halfway down the stairs and around 3 blocking the foot of the stairs milling about trying to feel important.

3) You have to have your wits about you for this one but about 10 mins after full stop you can notice around 8-9 firmen posing for a picture, thumbs raised, plenty of back slapping beside the gear.

4) Anyone who had an airport ID card seemed to be milling/poking around.

and

5) The buses were on the tarmac for what seemed like an eternity, I thought that wasn't very 'bueno' to quote a local phrase.

These are minor points compared to the excellent flying by the pilot and crew. Just maybe could be looked at for the future.

[GotTheTshirt]

Not at all familiar with the Bus, but on other aircraft the nose gear is mechanically prevented from turning more that 50 - 60 degrees, hence the need to disconnect NLG torque links for towing.;)
Is the Bus and other later generation:rolleyes: aircraft not the same ??:confused:

Never had this problem on the DC3:p

[West Coast]

I guess the importance of the critique on responding ARFF units after the emergency was over is lost on me.

[Dani]

but on other aircraft the nose gear is mechanically prevented from turning more that 50 - 60 degrees

It's yet too early to speculate about why it turned to 90° but it's much better to have it that way than less. Imagine what would happen if you have it turned about 10-20 degrees...!

It's pretty obvious to me that Airbus designed this part the way that it goes to about 90° so it doesn't turn into a catastrophic position.

Modern aircraft also have the feature of locking it out and letting it go more than 90° for towing, including Airbus.

[NigelOnDraft]

Does anybody know what indications the flight crew had on the flight deck, how did they know that they had a problem? As posted earlier, the A320 "Book 3" (the 'Abnormals' book) details exactly the occasions / warnings that may result in the NW being 90 degress off. It seems a known potential fault, even has some mitigation (90 degrees OK, 60 degrees not - see KLM 737 BCN), and has occurred a number of times without all this publicity.

To actually find out would require a flyby.... but to be honest, from the notes in Book 3, if you couldn't establish that (IMC / LVPs etc.), you'd just assume it was off.

I'll leave enquiries to establish how "hazardous" it really is. Seems to be dramatic, and expensive in warranty terms for someone in the Airbus chain, but dangerous?

[cwatters]

It occured to me that 90 degrees might be the best angle for the system to go to in the event of a failure...

90 degrees might actually be better than 0 degrees because at 90 the wheels would have little or no grip - giving some steering using the rudder.... or have I got that wrong?

[fmgc]

As posted earlier, the A320 "Book 3" (the 'Abnormals' book) details exactly the occasions / warnings that may result in the NW being 90 degress off

Well the only one is "L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT" and even then you must have "WHEEL N.W. STEER FAULT" in order to suspect a nosewheel alignment problem, (according to the book).

I am still interested to know what indications that these chaps had. Did they do a fly by?

[readywhenreaching]

Did anyone noticed in the Video that flames only erupted when the NW scraped over the centreline marking ?

Inbetween them, the fire got smaller or even extiguished.

Was that burning paint or only my imagination ?

[Accident Prawn]

OK then, how about a castoring MAIN gear problem??

Read this:


http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-BVKC_4-05.pdf

[big fraidy cat]

I guess this incident is 'just another day at the office' for all you pilots, but the passengers on the aircraft sure thought that the safe landing was nothing short of spectacular. Of course, sitting up in that plane for 3 hours waiting for touchdown must have really been a nail-biter. Here's a link to an article in the New York Daily News with a bit of info about your compatriot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/349134p-297803c.html

[Ozzy]

Jeremy Vine on Radio2 just referred to this incident as a "crash landing". What a tit.:rolleyes:

Ozzy

[newswatcher]

Ozzy, not so fast. Google a dictionary definition for "crash landing". First two I found:

Noun - an emergency landing by an aircraft or spacecraft
Noun - an emergency landing under circumstances where a normal landing is impossible (usually damaging the aircraft)

OK, so the second does not quite fit as the aircraft wasn't damaged............................................thankfull y.


Back to the thread...................

[flarepathgt]

Lift dumpers as the name suggests dump lift, reducing the ability to control the rate at which the nose wheel will touch, important.

Thrust reversers as the name suggests reverse thrust, with underslung engines an increase in thrust WILL create a pitch up moment (thrust vector below the a/c centre of gravity) therefore using reverse thrust will?

Anybody?

You guessed it, cause a nose down pitch (action and reaction equal and opposite), firmly planting the nosewheel onto the tarmac.

Elementary physics agreeing with the manufacturers QRH and manuals.

I can't believe anyone would question this but there you go!

As for not evacuating, a difficult decision to make when you are in that situation itself (note: the majority of injuries occur during evacuation), impossible to pass judgement when flying the armchair! Nobody was hurt, so obviously it was the right decision!

The point of this post?

They did a blindin' job and do not deserve to have their actions called into question by anyone.

PERIOD

[G-CPTN]

It was easy to see from the video (easy in hindsight!) that the 'flames' were 'just' abrasion of the (metal) along the runway (though of course sparks could easily have ignited leaking fluids).
I suspect that direct communication with the following Emergency Services provided information that, having stopped, there was no 'fire' - but it must have been a close (and cool) call.
Well done to all those involved.
Now can we have a second take for the cameras? Oh, I forgot, the cameras WERE rolling and it was a perfect first take!

[routechecker]

Not sure if someone has alredy posted this on PPRuNe.
In hindsight this recording, to a point does show how things can go one way or another based on individual decisions.

http://libsyn.com/media/joepodcaster/fwm85.mp3

rgds

edited for correct link

[GotTheTshirt]

CPTN
Had a similar situation on a BAC 1-11 where nose wheel hit first and broke the wheels which ground the bottom of the shock strut along the runway. The hydraulic oil from the leg ( coming out under pressure !) caught fire in a similar fashion. The fire went out once the oil all burnt away.;)

[HotDog]

Tshirt,The hydraulic oil from the leg ( coming out under pressure !) caught fire in a similar fashion. The fire went out once the oil all burnt away

It does'nt look like the fire was from oleo fluid on the photographs. The nose gear does not seem to have been ground down past the axles.

[sabenaboy]

fmgc asked:


Well the only one is "L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT" and even then you must have "WHEEL N.W. STEER FAULT" in order to suspect a nosewheel alignment problem, (according to the book).

I am still interested to know what indications that these chaps had. Did they do a fly by?

fmgc: the answer is in the link provided by Routechecker:

http://libsyn.com/media/joepodcaster/fwm85.mp3

They had L/G shock absorber fault + NW steer fault.

And, yep, they did a flyby:
Picture here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=926275&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N320-232&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=WrgOyhr%20Nvejnlf&QtODMg=Ybat%20Ornpu%20-%20Qnhturegl%20Svryq%20%28YTO%20%2F%20XYTO%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Pnyvsbeavn&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%2021%2C%202005&BP=1&WNEb25u=Zvpunry%20Pnegre&xsIERvdWdsY=A536WO&MgTUQtODMgKE=Qry.%2005%2F24%2F2002%20%22Pnalba%20Oyhr%22%2C% 20gnvy%20yvirel%20%22Fdhnerf%22%20rk%20Nveohf%20S-JJQF%20cresbezf%20n%20ybj%20cnff%20sbe%20gur%20YTO%20Gbjre%2 0sbe%20n%20abfr%20trne%20vafcrpgvba%20naq%20nf%20lbh%20pna%2 0frr%20gur%20abfr%20trne%20vf%20va%20n%2090%20qrterr%20cbfvg vba.%20Sbyybjvat%20gur%20sylol%2C%20gur%20nvepensg%20fcrag%2 0gur%20arkg%202%20ubhef%20sylvat%20bire%20gur%20Cnpvsvp%20Bp rna%20whfg%20bss%20Ybat%20Ornpu%20oheavat%20shry%20orsber%20 qviregvat%20gb%20YNK%20sbe%20na%20rzretrapl%20ynaqvat%2C%20j uvpu%20unccvyl%20jnf%20n%20fhpprfshyy%20bar%20jvgubhg%20vawh evrf.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=41807&NEb25uZWxs=2005-09-22%2005%3A07%3A57&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=1784&static=yes&width=1024&height=692&sok=JURER%20%20%28cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27926283%27%20BE%20cubgb _vq%20%3D%20%27926274%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27926275%2 7%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=2&prev_id=926283&next_id=926274)

[vapilot2004]

I've been reading and hearing a great deal about Spoilers and Thrust Reversers not being used during this landing, and with no proper answer being put forth, I wanted to share. ;)

When the LGCIU or BSCU registers a level error - - the all-knowing brain :8 of the Bus locks the pilots out these decel modes. If the pilots wanted reversers or ground spoilers, the computer would respond with a non-negotiable - 'I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.....' message.

This particular bit of programming is designed to prevent gear collapse in the event of no lock gear extension or sundry other events, and in true Airbus fashion, the computer is pre-programmed to protect the pilots from actions that may cause a bad situation to get worse in foreseeable conditions.

Nosewheel 90deg questions - the BSCU/LGCIU system, upon discovery of a steering control error will drive the wheels to the 90 deg position automatically. Also, the strut is designed to take such a wheels akimbo landing, as has been demonstrated with nimbly successful if not spectacular results thus far.

Seeing this on live television, I was relieved upon safe landing, and found myself actually applauding the tube, mostly for the PIC , once the flames went out

All in all - Good job all around !

MO- Toulouse needs to address this area - one day we may have a pilot and/or situation that does not fit the designers' pre-destined logic flow, and we all know what can happen when that beast rears it's most un-lovely head. Perhaps another V2.04.22 B revision is due soon. :ok:

[sabenaboy]

When the LGCIU or BSCU registers a level error - - the all-knowing brain of the Bus locks the pilots out these decel modes. If the pilots wanted reversers or ground spoilers, the computer would respond with a non-negotiable - 'I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.....' message.

This particular bit of programming is designed to prevent gear collapse in the event of no lock gear extension or sundry other events, and in true Airbus fashion, the computer is pre-programmed to protect the pilots from actions that may cause a bad situation to get worse in foreseeable conditions.

Vapilot2004,

That is bul...it!!

I can assure you that reversers and ground spoilers CAN be deployed with an unsafe L/G indication. (The nosewheel steering will be inop because of the gravity gear extension asked for in the checklist)

Only with both LGCIU's at fault will the T/R's be inop



the all-knowing brain of the Bus locks the pilots out these decel modes. If the pilots wanted reversers or ground spoilers, the computer would respond with a non-negotiable - 'I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.....' message.

I suggest that you post stupid comments like that on "a.net".
Remember what the first two P's in PPRuNe stands for?

[Marko Ramius]

The reason that you can not get reverse thrust with a dual LGCIU failure is because the aeroplane doesn't know if it is on the ground or not and it is there to stop an inflight thrust reverser deployment.

http://www.monarchcc.com/council/documents/rtschematic.gif

[vapilot2004]

apologies sabenaboy, didn't mean to completely upset your sensibliities !

I admit, my OR should have been an AND . LGCIU AND BSCU/LGCIU. Imagine that - a human mistake typing logic functions. :)

Despite my mistype, please absorb my observance of the 'Airbus programmatic response and limitations' to/of our pilots in the cockpit.

This is a little discussed tenet of Airbus design - don't trust the pilots ! On balance,with worldwide airline cockpit staffing fully considered, the concept is very well intended - I am not entirely knocking the idea. Just need to work out some logic trees now and again to get things moving right, you know - and mostly it all seems to work very well ! :p

And as far as stupid comments go my good gentleman, the 'I'm afraid I can't do that Dave' comment stands nonetheless. I have access to operations and maintenance data on these aircraft. Do I need to quote from the book ?

best regards and again, no offense intended - my missive was directed to inform and (or should that have been an OR) enlighten.:8 :ok: :confused: :p And this flight's ending as have 7 like ones were without death or serious injury - for that we can all agree - is good, very good.

[barit1]

This is a little discussed tenet of Airbus design - don't trust the pilots !

This is indicative of short-range thinking IMHO. Allow me reiterate (again!): The more we Murphy-proof our world, the more we contribute to raising a new-and-improved generation of Murphys!

(Apolopies to any present-company persons of this fine name...)

[BenThere]

It's a flaw if there's not a manual override for everything.

I like manual reversion in all flight controls, too, but that's not always possible, given the size of control surfaces and forces required to move them.

Sabenaboy,

Have a little respect! You could have disagreed with Vapilot's post with a little more civility. Just my opinion.

[Flap 5]

This was an excellent example of how to deal with such an incident. A combination of QRH drills and common sense. However not sure that I would have walked around under the nose afterwards - in case the nose gear collapsed while I was there!

[sabenaboy]

The LGCIU's will not block T/R's when they "discover" an unlocked gear.

That would indeed be stupid.

When both LGCIU's have failed however T/r's will be inop because, as pointed out by Ramius, there's no way the aeroplane can know if it is on the ground or not and it is there to stop an inflight thrust reverser deployment.

[Joe d'Eon]

I posted a recording of the in flight radio communications between the Jet Blue captain and his dispatcher/maintenance rep. Maintenance is heard saying "it's just an indicator problem, the gear is straight".

You can hear it in episode 8.5 of my podcast at http://flywithjoe.com

edit -- Sorry, I should have read the entire thread before I posted. Routechecker and sabenaboy already posted my link.

[Kiwiguy]

I gather from another forum that there was a blown hydraulic seal.

Adding my own 2 bob's worth, the steering is actuated through two horizontally opposed pistons on the strut. When the O-ring blows out on one piston then the other would push the nosewheel hard over.

Not hard to imagine an O-ring failure

[pom]

At least the seventh such incident, according to this report:

http://http://www2.dailynews.com/antelopevalley/ci_3053966

[ExSimGuy]

might a stop-cock in the nosewheel hydraulic system, and a castoring spring attached to the wheel be an answer?

if they go for it, I want royalties - You Saw it Here First! :}

[G-CPTN]

>might a stop-cock in the nosewheel hydraulic system, and a castoring spring attached to the wheel be an answer?

**********************************
Together with a trap-door and a rope-ladder, so that the Flight Engineer (who-he nowadays?) could shin down and close the stop-cock whilst the pilot 'held it steady'?

[Wizofoz]

Flight International stated that the same problem has occured SEVEN time to Airbus aircraft.

[1DC]

According to news reports at the time the Captain was in command at both incidents, bit of a bummer if that is true..

[G-CPTN]

More info @
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191037&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

"It's the second occurrence in JetBlue & would you believe it - the same skipper was in command! Old hat to the guy but he must have been chanting "why me again?"

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/349134p-297803c.html

[Airbus_a321]

I feel commiserate with the lonesome, unfortunate Skipper, who has to deal twice with sluttish ("low-cost") maintenance.

[TOGA Descent]

Information about incidents like the two with jetBlue, and similiar, can be located on the US DOT website (Not NTSB).

This link will take you to the Document Managment Server

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormAdvanced.cfm

[Bearcat]

this fantastic gen and thank you to all the contributors. something we would never come across in sim training.

[Oshkosh George]

What I find incredible in these incidents,is why the nose leg doesn't collapse in milliseconds!

Are they carbon fibre?

[KC-10 Driver]

low-cost-airline = low-cost-maintenance

I feel commiserate with the lonesome, unfortunate Skipper, who has to deal twice with sluttish ("low-cost") maintenance.

Airbus_a321,

Do you have any data to back up your claim of "low-cost" (or, you seem to imply, "inferior") maintenance practices at JetBlue? What knowledge do you have of the LCCs in general in the U.S.?

I am very comfortable with the maintenance practices and personnel at JetBlue.

And, I can assure you that the major LCCs in the U.S.A. (Southwest, JetBlue, America West, AirTran, etc) have had no serious questions raised about maintenance.

[cringe]

Another case from November 2002:

United A319 at ORD (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20021125X05520&ntsbno=CHI03IA027&akey=1)

[Wino]

G-CPTN

It can't be a design flaw. Airbus has NEVER made a design flaw. Just ask them :rolleyes: :yuk:

Cheers
Wino

[G-CPTN]

>It can't be a design flaw. Airbus has NEVER made a design flaw. Just ask them

**********************************

I notice that several design changes were made.
During my career as an Experimental Vehicle Test Engineer, we frequently had 'failures' which were deemed to be irrelevant because the designer had meanwhile revised the design (albeit not significant to the failure). You had to ensure that the latest design release level parts were fitted, otherwise . . .
. . . the failure didn't 'count'!

Even the latest report
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20021125X05520&ntsbno=CHI03IA027&akey=1
(which 'suggests' that the failures were as a result of incorrect assembly) is, in my opinion, a design fault - a safety-critical item should NOT be capable of incorrect assembly. If necessary, an assembly-jig should be employed.

Remember Murphy!

[ILS27LEFT]

Some more:

Source: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:SpXE4FmbswcJ:www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/over/a320/A320-098.pdf+A320-32-1197+&hl=en


"One operator experienced three events when the aircraft landed with the nose wheel turned to 90 degrees. Investigation revealed that the two O-ring seals fitted to the electro hydraulic distributor which controls the hydraulic supply to the steering control module 6GC were extruded due to ageing or the absence of a back up ring. This defect allowed permanent pressurisation of the steering actuator through the steering selector valve and the possibility of the nose wheel rotating through 90 degrees. This directive introduces new seals into hydraulic control module 6GC to prevent an occurrence of such a defect. "


More in





HERE (http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=12345&ADS/1999/99-23-09.html)

[PAXboy]

Airbus_a321 As a passenger, I care not whether it is high/low cost or Airbus/Boeing/DHC/Embraer/etc. I care that I get there.

The prevailing common factor of this failure, is that this is happening to Airbus 320s and that needs to be fixed.

In the long thread following the incident last week, folks suggested that, if the gear does fail, it may be better that it rotate to 90 degrees, rather than be left at 10 or 15. From the two lots of Jet Blue photos, we see that the nose gear strut has withstood the remarkable forces upon it and not collapsed, that has to be in favour of manufacturer.

As there appears to have been no loss of life due to these failures (all of them) then we can see that the flight crew have done very well with the situation presented. On that, whilst it may be unfortunate for the same JB Captain to have the same fault twice, if I was a pax on the flight, I would have been rather pleased that he had direct experience of the problem!

The "low-cost-airline = low-cost-maintenance" line that you are attempting to push, has been dicussed in PPRuNe countless times and no one has presented evidence that this is true. All LCC carriers know that the first hull loss could put them out of business. When I look at stats for hull losses across the globe and back over decades, thus far the LCCs are doing OK. However, it will be another 20 years before the accusation that you posit can be assessed.

As you appear to believe that LCCs are scrimping on maintenance, I suggest that you report the evidence you have to the relevant authorities as quickly as possible. After all, you would not want to see LCC machines crash and know that you could have saved them ... would you?

[Safety Guy]

Airbus_a321:

You may want to think carefully before you speak (or type). It's a pretty safe guess as to who you work for, and their mtce has had its issues in the past, just as every airline has. Airplanes are maintained by humans, who just like pilots, truck drivers and everybody else, they occasionally make mistakes.

JetBlue has an excellent safety record, and as has been pointed out above, this is an apparent design flaw as opposed to a maintenance problem. And, it has happened to major carriers as well as charters and low cost airlines.

[747FOCAL]

Here are some pics of the gear up close:

http://home.comcast.net/~aeroman2/MVC-001F.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~aeroman2/MVC-001L.JPG http://home.comcast.net/~aeroman2/MVC-002L.JPG http://home.comcast.net/~aeroman2/MVC-007L.JPG http://home.comcast.net/~aeroman2/MVC-009L.JPG http://home.comcast.net/~aeroman2/MVC-014F.JPG

[christosflyer]

The above is of course the New York incident.

Now why did the moderators delete my thread yesterday when I put these pictures up?

[Semaphore Sam]

If a recurring problem has happened SEVEN (7) times, is it not a design flaw, not due to defective MX? Same with the famous 737 rudder design flaw, and the DC10 cargo door; if it happens more than, say, 3 times, forget maintenance...go to the designers. They'd damn well better fix this!

[NigelOnDraft]

If a recurring problem has happened SEVEN (7) times, is it not a design flaw, not due to defective MX? Same with the famous 737 rudder design flaw, and the DC10 cargo door; if it happens more than, say, 3 times, forget maintenance...go to the designers. They'd damn well better fix this! Errr..... Why?

737 Rudder issues = lots of dead people, due to a "lose aircraft" design problem.
DC10 Cargo Door likewise

A32x NW Steering. It is a designed in failure mode. For specified fault(s) the NW is designed to run to 90 degrees. I see no evidence that all 7 occurences are due to the same root cause (there have been 'O' ring problems, incorrect maintenance, maybe others?) - it is the employment of the designed safety mode that mitigates these various other faults.

So by all means lets encourage Airbus and the various Safety Bodies work on removing the root causes - as I am sure they are. But I cannot understand why you want this design feature removed?

The "hazard" to the Pax/Crew/Aircraft is minimal - in the UA case the crew were unaware until someway through the landing roll. If you want to just remove this design feature and have the various causes lead to random NW angles, then I suggest you fly on 737s, and suffer results like the KLM 737 @ BCN (aircraft written off, Pax/Crew OK but only by luck - aircraft could not be kept on runway and ended up stopping just in front of deep/wide water filled ditch - in there would have likely equalled fatalities).

NoD

[Strepsils]

If it is designed to run to 90 degrees, why can't they design it to run to 0 degrees? Surely the same mechanical logic applies, so why not have it pointing the right way?:confused:

[NigelOnDraft]

If it is designed to run to 90 degrees, why can't they design it to run to 0 degrees? Judging from the 1 report I've read the 'O' ring problem leads to one actuator of the NWS malfunctioning and running to an extensive NW angle. Having realised you have a deflected NW, 90 degrees is the best, for obvious reasons.

There are plenty of other failure cases on the Airbus where you lose NWS, and have 0 degrees....

NoD

[GotTheTshirt]

What happened to centering cams at the botom of the NLG shock struts as on OLD aircraft :confused:
Ah doesnt need a computer that could be the problem
;)

It may be senility but I dont seem to remember all these nose wheel incidents in the "old days"

Of course we did have a few problems with the tail wheel centering locks !:)

[HectorusRex]

It would appear that Airbus have this matter now under control.

Jet Blue A320 Nose Landing Gear Incident at LAX



"The investigation into the Jet Blue event will be clearly focused on the Nose Landing Gear. Whilst it is premature to draw any conclusions concerning this event; two incidents have previously been reported where a landing was carried out with the nose landing gear (NLG) wheels at 90 degrees to the aircraft centerline. Both events occurred a few days after a NLG shock absorber dynamic seal replacement.



The checks performed after the events revealed an incorrect installation of the NLG shock absorber in the NLG leg. The upper cam was rotated from its original position by one dowel creating an offset of 20 to 30 degrees. Therefore, the lugs of the piston of the shock absorber were not properly engaged by maintenance into the slots of the shock absorber backplate, to compensate the cam offset.



On landing, the NLG tyres quickly deflated and were torn apart. Both wheels were worn away up to the wheel axle.



Maintenance Manual procedures have been amended adding additional steps to ensure correct cam alignment.



Airbus has reviewed the NLG shock absorber backplate design and has introduced a full proof device (modified upper support) which aims to avoid the possibility of errors in maintenance installation".

[kurrent]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73615743@N00/sets/1071481/

pictures obviously from JFK

[Ignition Override]

KC-10 Driver: this may have no connection to the A-320 incident, but several months ago, the "Wall Street Journal" had a feature article about airlines' "outsourced maintenance". The article stated that about a third of JetBlue's aircraft go once a year to San Salvador, El Salvador, for heavy maintenance checks.

The article also described a concern that among a given crew of mechanics at a given airplane which undergoes "outsourced maintenance", only the supervisor is required to be FAA-licensed, whether in the US or in a foreign country; but, if they are airline staff, then they must all be FAA-licensed, is this not true? Let's not forget what happened to a Valuejet JT8D on the runway in ATL. Maybe the foreign country or facility where the engines were overhauled is not the issue, but then, Valuejet made some of its profits by skimping on anything which was allowed by the FAA. Aftyer the crash, I watched "NBC Evening News" as the so-called Valuejet VP of Maintenance, sitting before Congress, claimed that he was not really responsible for technical issues...eh.... their maintenance was all "outsourced". One of our FOs was a captain there after he left TAC in the AF.

Whether this is a legitimate safety concern, I don't know. One such maint. facility almost lost a contract with a major US airline a few years ago, due to numerous faults in some aircraft, as they flew passengers following the maint. ferry flights. I talked to an experienced airline crew chief who was required to work with the contract mechanics, in order to verify that the correct work was done-otherwise, that facility ('down there')would have lost our contract for heavy checks. He picked us up at the airport and drove us nearby to the "outsourced" hangar where our plane waited. It had no problem when we flew it to the hub.

On the other hand, I once flew a plane (luckily in good VMC) from a [then] company hangar to a northern hub. Upon arrival, we wrote up at least four major problems (left radio went dead on final approach, APU rpm erratic, standby ADI precessed too much...), a master warning light mysteriously came on...).

[Algy]

Jetblue VP technical operations Dave Ramage talks here (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2004/10/01/188165/Opting+out.html) about the airline's view of maintenance outsourcing.

[Jet II]

A32x NW Steering. It is a designed in failure mode. For specified fault(s) the NW is designed to run to 90 degrees.

NoD - where did you get this information from? I checked yesterday in the servicing manuals and on Airbus tech docs support web-site and I can find nothing about any failure mode that would position the NWS to 90 degrees.

[Ignition Override]

Algy: Thanks, that article is interesting.

I am skeptical that the JetBlue VP is either completely honest, or "accurate", about how many planes undergo heavy checks, at least in whichever country.

Who knows, maybe both the writer and editor of the "Wall Street Journal" article, which I read, copied and showed to other pilots, got it wrong.:suspect:

The brand-new JetBlue A-320s were either a gift or a free loan from Airbus, for a while. They reportedly paid almost nothing for the first year or so of operations. If this can be proven, was this "competitive marketing", in order to artificially inflate "orders" at a major international airshow, and impress various airlines with the implication (by deception?), that the aircraft were producing revenue for Airbus? The spare parts are supposedly the trick. Sometime, when the dust settles here, I'll ask 'R.'. Who knows, maybe even Boeing, Fokker or Dornier etc gave away aircraft, at least for a while, to an airline, in order to trumpet the new numbers to the world's aviation press.

[Zeke]

Ignition Override

Algy: Thanks, that article is interesting.

I am skeptical that the JetBlue VP is either completely honest, or "accurate", about how many planes undergo heavy checks, at least in whichever country.

Who knows, maybe both the writer and editor of the "Wall Street Journal" article, which I read, copied and showed to other pilots, got it wrong.

The brand-new JetBlue A-320s were either a gift or a free loan from Airbus, for a while. They reportedly paid almost nothing for the first year or so of operations. If this can be proven, was this "competitive marketing", in order to artificially inflate "orders" at a major international airshow, and impress various airlines with the implication (by deception?), that the aircraft were producing revenue for Airbus? The spare parts are supposedly the trick. Sometime, when the dust settles here, I'll ask 'R.'. Who knows, maybe even Boeing, Fokker or Dornier etc gave away aircraft, at least for a while, to an airline, in order to trumpet the new numbers to the world's aviation press.

Please note that the Jetblue A320 contracts can be found online, your comments may need editing after you read the contracts.

http://contracts.onecle.com/jetblue/airbus.a320-11.2001.12.31.shtml
http://contracts.onecle.com/jetblue/airbus.a320-5.2000.11.07.shtml

Be interested in the caluse that says "gift", "free loan", "pay nothing"...I cannot see it.

[swh]

"If a recurring problem has happened SEVEN (7) times, is it not a design flaw, not due to defective MX? "

Twice in the last week 747's landed with 3 out of the 4 main gear fully deployed (Air Atlanta, All Nippon). I would not then jump to the colclusion the 747 has a design flaw.

[Ignition Override]

OK Zeke: maybe I was mistaken. The planes were apparently not free, but at first glance almost no numbers were to be found.

But what is the lease rate per aircraft, and are the lease rates heavily subsidized?

[VC10 Rib22]

IO,

Why don't you go to France and insist on seeing all Airbus' commercial-in-confidence documentation?:rolleyes:

[NigelOnDraft]

Jet II NoD - where did you get this information from? I checked yesterday in the servicing manuals and on Airbus tech docs support web-site and I can find nothing about any failure mode that would position the NWS to 90 degrees. For Flt Crew, Abn & Emergs Book (known as 'Book 3') details it under various L/G procedures / ECAM warnings...

HTH

NoD

[Fargoo]

There's also an item in the A320 Troubleshooting manual that describes the steps to take if the a/c lands with nose wheels at 90 degrees.
Replacing the servo valve is on the list - naturally incorrect assembly of the nose gear isn't.....