LH A340 X Pond With U/C Down??

[BYALPHAINDIA]

A LH A340 made a 'refuel' stop at MAN on Sat, It was reported on Ringway Reports that the A/C flew the journey from Charlotte - MAN with it's U/C down and locked??

Aircraft was DAIHM enroute to MUC.

Any truth in this?

Cheers for any replies.:ok:

[Airbubba]

No problem, just use the FMS fuel predictions.:)

[NG_Kaptain]

I'm sure you're being tongue in cheek, ask Hapag Lloyd about using predictions.

[ACMS]

The 777-300 uses about 120% more fuel gear down, so I guess the 340 would be similar. So how far did it supposidly fly with the gear down? Boeings aren't certified to fly more than 50 miles from land. ( we'll at least the CX ones anyway )

[BYALPHAINDIA]

Charlotte - MAN.

[BYALPHAINDIA]

ACMS, JBC what is your CLB rate & STL speed on the 777-300??

Many Thanks.:ok:

[ACMS]

huh?.....................

[Airbubba]

Maybe he wants to know how fast you can climb and get to St. Louis.

Whatever the fuel burn, extended flight with gear down is frowned upon by the FAA unless the plane is empty, has a ferry permit and you have the gear down data in your books. I've had a friend burned on this issue for continuing a short flight with lots of fuel and gear that would not retract.

[ACMS]

how fast I can climb?

Well we would be limited to 270 KIAS with the gear down and I guess the ROC would be around 800 to 1000 FPM? I don't know I've never done it.

The 777-300 ( not the ER ) is thrust limited to about 20,000' ( give or take ) with the gear down.

The kg/anm goes from about 17 for normal ops to as high as 38 to 40 with gear down.

So range is slightly less than half of normal.


So...............The A340 can fly for about 15 to 16 hrs normally? ( just a guess ) So it would be limited to about 7 to 8 with the gear down at maybe 340 KTAS...........So maybe about 2,500 miles range?????

Just a wild guess.

[BRE]

Read this somewhere else days ago, they sorted out the problem while flying along the east coast and then crossed the pond with the gear up.

[GlueBall]

In case of a revenue flight, it would be preposterous to fly across the pond with gear down. Consider performance criteria with an engine failure mid Atlantic. It would certainly be more "fuel efficient" to dump fuel [down to max landing weight] and land, rather than overburning and then still having to make an en route fuel stop.

[PJ2]

Glueball - fully concur. If you can't get the gear up on a 340, 330, or 320 series, the fuel factor kept in the backs of minds of most crews was x2.5.

A gear-down ferry across the Atlantic would be bumping up against an extremely tiny box of performance limitations; the walls, floors and ceilings of ZFW plus fuel required for the ferry, which limits altitude requiring more fuel, which increases takeoff weight which may further restrict altitude which...and that's not accounting for temperature - the balance has to be found and the parameters aren't inherently "stable" in the sense that small variations (lower altitude due traffic or higher temperature, colder air for lower TAS etc) can result in steeply increasing variations in fuel flow and speed.

Given the numbers, I doubt if it was actually done, in fact I've used numbers available to me and it can't be done without stops. One post said they got the gear up. Clearly they did because they didn't have to ditch. Regardless, risk outweighs all but emergency benefits in such an operation and even then planning YYR - KEF would be necessary. The airplane wouldn't do Charleston - MAN gear down.

Just for fun (to show when one could get wet), here are some sample numbers:

Gear-down ferry, Airbus A340-300
240kt/M0.52 Cruise Charts
Max certified alt 350
Actual max alt for an Atlantic crossing, empty but with sufficient fuel for the crossing, FL200
Numbers for 210k kgs @ 200:
N1 92.7%
Kg/h/eng 2754kg/hr
NM/1000kg 29.0nm
Mach 0.520
IAS 237kts
TAS 319kts
OEW 130k kg, approx

A shorter leg than Charleston to LHR, YYZ - LHR flight, is about 3200nm or, at 350kts across the water, about 9hrs 30min depending upon holding at BOV...:bored: I could calculate the climb and descent fuel but won't bother because this is academic, so the above cruise fuel numbers might be a bit high, (conservative) but a rough guess at the fuel load using the book numbers for cruise would be a minimum of 120k kg, or more than what it takes to get from YYZ to HKG...at today's prices I can't imagine even the beancounters thinking about it.

A jammed slat/flap condition or even main gear doors down will increase the fuel flow by a factor of about 2.5 as well. In my view, that stops any overseas operations.

Airbubba...heyyyy, that's a trick question, eh?.... ;-)

[Touch'n'oops]

PJ2 is right.

One of Monarch's A330s is in Gander after ferrying from Stanford with the gear down. The Atlantic crossing wasn't taken due to the poor aircraft performance in the event of an engine failure. Airbus engineers and their equipment have been flown out to fix the gear. I'm sure there are a few bean counters passed out on the floor of Mon HQ.

[slam_dunk]

Incident: Lufthansa A346 near Charlotte on Aug 15th 2008, gear did not retract, then problem solved for Atlantic crossing
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Aug 17th 2008 14:25Z, last updated Monday, Aug 18th 2008 20:43Z

The crew of a Lufthansa Airbus A340-600, registration D-AIHM performing flight LH429 from Charlotte,NC (USA) to Munich (Germany) with 272 passengers and 16 crew, considered to divert to Washington International after the gear did not retract on departure from Charlotte.

After about one hour troubleshooting at 10.000 feet while heading towards Washington the problem could be solved and the gear did retract. The crew therefore decided to continue the Atlantic crossing and climbed to FL370.

Due to the troubleshooting at low altitude with increased fuel burn an intermediate stop to refuel was needed at Manchester,EN (UK). After the fuel stop however the gear could again not be retracted. The airplane continued to Munich with the gear down.

The airplane reached Munich with a delay of 3 hours 20 minutes.



Source : The Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/h?article=40b4d2ba&opt=1)

[Huck]

It takes you an hour to get the gear up, and you press on across the Atlantic? With pax on board?

Jesus, what is this industry headed for?

[kingoftheslipstream]

It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe.

Lufthansa dispatch would/could have provided a new flight plan in gear down configuration for the crossing if it was necessary. The flight deck drivers could make a clear go or no-go decision. If the flight was only about 3:30 late at final destination and based on what else has been written here so far, then the whole thing was not a big deal at all. Occasionally these thing happen. Good fer them. :ok:

[Waldo]

Touch n oops

The Monarch A330 only stopped in Goose to refuel and was to continue across the Atlantic. Unfortunately further damage to the undercarriage was discovered, hence the reason it stayed in Goose.
Its now back in service!

[TURIN]

Ahem....Manchester 6 (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/339470-manchester-6-a.html)

I did wonder when it climbed out of MAN if the gear went up. Unfortunately it was a bit cloudy....again! :{

[ACMS]

Ok then....................about what I said.

The 777-300 achieves about 38 kg/anm at FL200 gear down
The A343 achieves about 34kg/anm gear down. ( from your figures: 11016 kg/hr with 319 TAS )

[Huck]

It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe.


No it's not.

I can think of a bunch of gear failure modes that would cause trouble retracting the gear. And a couple of them would damage things enough that the ensuing landing would be exciting.

And throw a crossing in there - with reduced diversion options, RVSM requirements.... They made it so they look great now but BELIEVE me, had they put it down in Greenland with a couple of inop brakes and full of passengers, the resulting investigation would have been a bear.

[moggiee]

Huck,

The landing would be the same where ever it took place - so it may as well be nearer to destination. If there are no indications of damage to the aeroplane then another 6 hours won't make a lot of difference.

As long as the fuel is recalculated to allow for it (something the Hapag LLoyd chaps didn't do) then there is little or no reason not to go on. They would also, I presume, have had to dump fuel for an immediate landing - much better to burn it usefully to cross the Atlantic than throw it into the sea.

[icarusone]

Interestingly enough,

The majority of ditching checklists call for gear up. Obviously you couldn't comply with this if the gear is forced down. I know it's a very, very unlikely scenario and probably one of the lesser worries in that scenario.

Just my two pence.

[pigboat]

Stupid question time. Is the airplane certified for transatlantic operations with a load of passengers with the gear extended?

[BYALPHAINDIA]

An earlier poster said something about a radius of 50 miles certified from land.:confused:

[L337]

If you are having problems getting the wheels up, then it is also possible you might have a problem getting them down again.

Fighting to get the wheels down at destination, or at an en-route fuel stop, and probably short of fuel, is not my idea of fun.

[Joetom]

So I guess, enough fuel was loaded in MAN to allow flight with gear down to MUC ?
.
3 hours 10 mins late arrival at MUC was a good result.
.
Sure this would of got more press had the gear got stuck up on the MAN MUC sector ?

[repulo]

Guys, nobody would cross the pond with the gear down. It took them some time to find out what´s wrong then got it up and did an inflight replaning due to the higher FF till the problem was solved. Thats all.

[pigboat]

Thank you uplock, that is exactly what I was looking for.

Guys, nobody would cross the pond with the gear down.

That would be my supposition also. The question was aimed more at those individuals who saw nothing wrong with even thinking about doing so.

[Enderby-Browne]

"It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe." Ridiculous comment. This was neither safe nor sensible, especially in an aircraft like the A340.

[Rwy in Sight]

I am wondering if FAA would show the same interest as in the case of another large carrier that crossed an ocean with just three engines working despite LH having solved the problem before venturing into the ocean.

Rwy in Sight

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Enderby-Browne:
"It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe." Ridiculous comment. This was neither safe nor sensible, especially in an aircraft like the A340.
[Unquote]

Re the last phrase of your post, what feature(s) of the A340 would make it "especially" unsafe, Enderby-Browne?

That is not necessarily to imply disagreement with the first part of the sentence. Just curious,

Chris

[Self Loading Freight]

Does anyone know what the gear problem was and how it was resolved? That may have some bearing on the question of whether it was safe or not to continue - and I'd be surprised if the crew hadn't discussed this over the blower with maintenance.

Is this sort of incident normally written up and published?

R

[oddjob1952]

Is that the same customer service Birdseed Airways used to fly a 747 LA-LHR with one engine failed just after departure.
The type of customer service I like is a cold beer packet of nuts and to stay alive to do it again another day!
If in doubt get on the ground to sort out issues it's not right to make some engineer many thousands of miles away make up the captains mind for him.
Bottom line GET ON THE GROUND to fix issues, pilots fly aircraft, engineers fix aircraft.

And yes you are right I am an engineer of 40+ years!!

[3Greens]

oddjob1952

as you are an engineer may i respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting such tripe. We have a process that allows us to fault find and if possible rectify whilst airborne. If this process then requires a return to bae/diversion then believe me, this isn't a decision taken lightlly. Fact is returns cost mega bucks, howver if it is prudent to do so and the flight cannot be SAFELY carried out then this decision will be made!

I see nothing wrong in continuing the flight once they got the gear up...refuelling in MAN and then continuing to MUN. Lufthansa guys are generally excellent so give them a break as we don't know the facts. Noone in their right mind would croos the atlantic wheels down - the noise alone would drive you mad for 7 hours!

[Pugilistic Animus]

I agree with OddJob1952--they should have landed--at the nearset suitable destination [same sentiment with the BA 3/4 xing] AND NOT RETRACTED the GEAR!!!!

as other have said what if it wouldn't redeploy---or the hydaulic motors remained energized leading to an overheat or total failure ? the only thing thats hould be considered by FD is the approach plate back!!

and since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport--and I don't care if it's an airbus or a stearman---land!!!

if it not on the approved MEL or CDL then you land---get ferry a waiver if you will---but again Land!!

I guess the undercariage is just not that critical:\

PA

[BigShip]

if the system works, fine... go fly ahead

do not land...

you can check hydraulic temperatures, no problem.. ?

P.S: It says in checklist to retry the procedure..
no reason to land again...

By the way, I would not declare emergency either...
But a PAN

do you think it helps to land with 360 people in Bangor or Gander and then wait for 24h or more for a support team to fly in and then continue.. ?

I want to see my pax, when I tell them landing gear was o.k. now, but you can continue your travel onward tomorrow or the day after with me. Everybody who wants to leave, o.k. but without suitcase...

Definetely a bad decision.. to land enroute in this case, if the system is back to normal again !
Result shows: Correct decision !

Besides, better to land with empty tanks then with full tanks..

[Idle Thrust]

PA:

"since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport."

You have missed the point - they did the "Cannot Raise the Gear" procedure and it came up. Why would they then land at the nearest suitable?

"if it not on the approved MEL or CDL then you land---get ferry a waiver if you will---but again Land!!"

Once again you don't understand - the MEL (not sure what a CDL is but it's probably the same thing) is used on the ground to determine dispatch capability. The only time(s) you might have it out in flight would be to determine the ability to dispatch from a down-line station, or to comply with procedures specific to dispatch with an inoperative item. In flight irregularities are dealt with using emergency/abnormal drills and checklists.

[3Greens]

PA

you have in one single post managed to miss the whole point of why we carry a QRH. the MEL/CDL is pre-dispatch. We might consult it after the QRH drill has been carried out but only for extra information and definately not as the primary document.
As for FAR rules - i think you will find that every pilot will act in accordance with their company SOPS 99% of the time.
Again, as a pilot my preduedure would have been
1. consult QRH
2. if prob rectified - continue as planned.
3. if prob not rectified - return

pretty simple really!

[javelin]

It would be interesting to find out what caused the initial problem. Having had u/c problems in a sim session and on the line, I would hazard a guess at either nosegear oleo failure to extend - this physically prevents you from moving the handle and clears after a period of time when it does actually extend.

Second was a failure to uplock which was a shortening link adjustment problem after a main gear service. That one was on a ferry and we took it back to base - about 2 hours - with the gear up, not locked on engineering advice.

I would have preferred the alternative of a nightstop in Zurich and out on the town with the SR Technics guys :E

[Pugilistic Animus]

3Greens:
Idle Thrust:

I'm willing to stand corrected and I do understand the signifigance o9f the MEL/CDL---- but----

I'm trying to say that a defective or inoperative item not on the MEL/CDL even post dispatch---negates the airworthiness specifications of the ship and as such should be landed when practical---because that means there's no certification for the unserviceability of that particular item---in the case of gear retraction---I wouldn't continue the flight not because I couldn't get the gear up but more out of fear I couldn't get it back down:\--

-I wouldn't try to diagnose the problem---i let the mechanics deal with that on the ground While I sip cold coffee---because if there were a crash/incident I don't think the authorities would really care--they'd just cite you on reckless and careless operation

now if the QRH gives a procedure as has been alluded If it didn't work the very first time I'd call it quits simple--my gut feelings just wouldn't let me continue in that scenario---fighting to get the gear up---might mean that you'd have to fight to get it down---I don't want to say I hope the gear will drop when we get down---I just read an article about HOPE in aviation---it means Horrendous Outcomes Per Emotions---that flight had to much of a hope elememt for me

[Jetjock330]

There are 2 LGCIU’s in the Airbus A340 (Land Gear Comp 1+2) controlling the gear, which alternates and swaps over when the gear handle is selected down, if I remember.

In my previous life, one of the A340’s got airborne on an 11 hour flight to base and had a gear problem after lift off. Before landing 11 hours later the LGCIU swapped over and worked fine for the gear down and subsequent landing. The crew wrote it up in the tech log.

The engineering team of course decided to swap the LGCIU’s (not thingking they are returning to the original problem) around again, with the remark please report further. Of course they have now re racked the faulty LGCIU back into operation.

The next crew takes the aircraft back on another 11 hour flight and couldn’t get the gear up after take-off. The captain decided not to dump fuel and not to return for landing, but rather go into the A&E bay and find and re-rack the LGCIU’s and CONTINUE.

Just incredible!

Well the gear retracted and then the crew flew for the next 11 hours wondering if the gear would come down.

I do believe the authorities were awaiting their arrival in Europe, to speak to the captain and hear his interesting explanation of his time in the A&E bay

[LandASAP]

The next crew takes the aircraft back on another 11 hour flight and couldn’t get the gear up after take-off. The captain decided not to dump fuel and not to return for landing, but rather go into the A&E bay and find and re-rack the LGCIU’s and CONTINUE.

What?! Are you serious with that? They are going down to swap Gear Computers while in flight? Ohhh...

In our company it's an absolutely "No Go" for the Flightcrew to enter the A&E bay not to mention to swap or re-rack any computers or to reset CBs especially while they are in flight ... The only thing they are allowed to do is to operate the Reset Breakers which are on the Overhead Panel after instruction from the Maintenance Control Center.

Greetings,
Michael

[Self Loading Freight]

What?! Are you serious with that? They are going down to swap Gear Computers while in flight? Ohhh...

Now THAT is Windows Syndrome. I've seen it a lot on Pprune - people get used to fixing their home computers by swapping stuff around. Worse, they do some programming and think they know about industrial computing. Worst of all, they're actually commercial software developers, know how that ratbag of chips called a PC operates (yes, you'll find the ghost of the original IBM design in every Intel-based box, no matter how multicore and gigahertzy it is), and think they know ALL about industrial computing.

Which is odd. Even those who know enough about plumbing to put in a new shower wouldn't think of mussing with the hydraulics - but there's something about IT that makes everyone who's seen a command line an instant expert.

Butanyway. Has anyone found out what actually happened during the incident mentioned in the original post?

R

[manrow]

I agree with OddJob1952 - pilots fly aircraft, engineers fix aircraft.

But I would alter the statement slightly as 'pilots fly SERVICEABLE aircraft, and engineers should keep them that way'!

[BigShip]

At LH they did not go into the A&E and did not swap the LGCIU.

Got that from a very reliable source from the fleet there...

Anyway the CM1 would have to answer a lot of questions, if he would have done that in flight.

:-)

[Huck]

We had a crew once that lost the box that ran the F/O's screens.

Instead of putting him on the AUX one (as called for by the QRH) they put him on the Captain's box.

Then whatever killed the F/O's box killed the Captain's box.

One cannot underestimate the ****storm created by troubleshooting maintenance in flight. The Tristar in the Everglades comes to mind.....

[TURIN]

or the hydaulic motors remained energized leading to an overheat or total failure ?
Huh? :confused:
Landing gear, hydraulic motors? :confused:

Does the A340-600 not use hydraulic jacks (actuators) like all the others?

CDL is the Configuration Deviation List by the way. It lists those items that are allowed to be missing for dispatch. EG Flap fairing. Out of interest what is it called in Canada? :ok:

The LH crew of this a/c also had the advantage of being able to see what the L/Gear was physically doing by using the ground manouvering (taxi) cameras installed. :ok:

[manrow]

Are the cameras a standard fit Turin?

[TURIN]

Not sure if it's a standard fit but it was fitted to this one as the skipper told me he'd used it to check the state of the landing gear when they had the problem.

[Pugilistic Animus]

yes, motor, like an electric motor, except, it's not electric it's hydraulic:} what if you can't turn off the motor/actuator whatever it's called?

A motor in engineering is any mechanical device that converts a form of energy into rotational motion providing a torque moment---there are pneumatic/hydraulic/electric and internal/external combustion--motors

[canadairguy]

CDL is the Configuration Deviation List by the way. It lists those items that are allowed to be missing for dispatch. EG Flap fairing. Out of interest what is it called in Canada?

Same thing.

[galdian]

Report by Captain:

"...unusual event...uncertain of ramifications...elected as PIC (not company Chairman)...to assess and land at a suitable airport...drills carried out...safe landing accomplished... passengers disembarked...aircraft, passengers and crew all safe and in one piece"
Regards Captain XXXXXXXXXXX

Company: "yes but WE preferred if you had continued"

Captain: "fine but me, myself, the passengers (please read "lawsuit" instead of passengers, please do!) the crew and your precious f**king aircraft are here,now, with the actions taken.
Had we continued???

Company: "yes....but even still WE preferred you to continue!"

Captain: "would you still maintain that attitude had YOU been aboard and we'd appraised you of the situation??"

Company: ..................after some consideration: "actually forgot to mention what a great effort you made for all involved, thank-you, cheerio-o!"
Pan to grey suited invidual scurrying away.

Cheers
Galdian

[411A]

...and since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport--and I don't care if it's an airbus or a stearman---land!!!


Sorry, 14CFR129 offers no such restriction with regard to MEL/CDL items, as BA clearly found out when one of their B744's continued to destination on three engines.
The FAA has no say in the matter, same with the above referenced BA flight.
Those who pound their chests, Tarzan-style, and insist that their countries regulations apply to others (regardless of aircraft nationality/registration) clearly have little practical information on which to base their incorrect assessments.

I'm trying to say that a defective or inoperative item not on the MEL/CDL even post dispatch---negates the airworthiness specifications of the ship and as such should be landed when practical---because that means there's no certification for the unserviceability of that particular item

Post dispatch?
Totally and completely wrong.

Unserviceable items after departure are handled on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Commander.
Yes, one can (and should) consult the MEL/CDL for additional operational information, however, once the aircraft is airbourne, MEL/CDL items have no legal binding effect, should a defect be found after departure.....unless other operational restrictions are located in the limitations section of the AFM.

So, does this then allow an aircraft, the landing gear of which, fails to retract, to continue the flight to destination?
In many cases, yes, provided the enroute capabilities are sufficient, and extra fuel is available, either for a non-stop flight or with a technical stop.
However, if a technical stop is required, the MEL/CDL then becomes operative once again.

[TOFFAIR]

Just guess the guys performed a thorough check and Xchecked via ACARS w HQ, additionally the information of the taxi cam would be quite precise, having that problem again on the MAN-MUC leg could have been antecipated, by putting enough fuel (just for that precise case), all in all a 3.5 hr delay was a great performance, considering on a JFK dep it could happen even on a flight without any unusual circumstance...
So I guess at decision was safe to continue, else stop in IAD. :ok:
I guess those surprised with the go-no-go procedures aren't flying for any comercial airline...
Safety comes first, when economic considerations allow!
PS: consider: A340-600 is longer than a A380, not a handy A/C in many places to divert...

[Kiwiguy]

I think there needs to be a reality check about airmanship. If they managed to get gear up after troubleshooting with passengers aboard then what were the odds the gear would actually lower again ?

Lufthansa wishes to welcome passengers to test flight LH429.

Doesn't anyone spot the problem ?

[411A]

If they managed to get gear up after troubleshooting with passengers aboard then what were the odds the gear would actually lower again ?



Excellent, I would expect.
The problem with many new(er) pilots is they have a seemingly poor knowledge of aircraft systems, oftentimes enforced by uninformed airline training departments, and also some manufacturers, who think that many pilots can't think for themselves...and clearly many uninformed ones can not.

Lets look back in time for a rational similar scenario.
Aircraft type, B707-320.
Airline concerned, PanAmerican.

PanAmerican completed many long overwater sectors, some of which originated from rather remote Pacific islands.
Ten plus hour sectors.
On occasion, when the landing gear was attempted to be selected up, it was found that the gear handle was 'locked' down.
This was usually because one of the main gear trucks was not completely level.
Pan Am ordered all their B707-320's with the hydraulic interconnect system to be able to be used in flight.
In this way, the landing gear could be retracted very slowly, using the AC electric pumps, while rails inside the wheel bays would slowly level trucks that were not aligned properly.
Once the landing gear was completely retracted and gear doors closed, interconnect off...back to normal.
This procedure was strictly at the descrition of the Commander.

Whom is to say that LH does not have an alternate landing gear procedure that others, who do not fly for LH, would have absolutely no knowledge of?

Just as many comments were critical of BA flying with one engine inop after departure from LAX when in actual fact the Commander concerned thought it was entirely practical, and BA management agreed...it is perhaps better for many pilots (and SLF) to look just past their own very slightly limited knowledge.:}

[Pugilistic Animus]

Sorry, 14CFR129 offers no such restriction with regard to MEL/CDL items, as BA clearly found out when one of their B744's continued to destination on three engines.

Unserviceable items after departure are handled on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Commander.
Yes, one can (and should) consult the MEL/CDL for additional operational information, however, once the aircraft is airbourne, MEL/CDL items have no legal binding effect, should a defect be found after departure.....unless other operational restrictions are located in the limitations section of the AFM.


411A, I enjoy reading your post a good deal but I still must respectfully disagree


in a technical sense of course you are correct--as per the words of 14CFR129, but as you also are aware the FAA can twist their own words as they please--and as the government has new found conservatism when it it come to second guessing ANY pilots decision as long as they can get the blame for a mishap placed upon s/he---but there are then there are advisory circulars [such as the W/B handbook---in describing the extent and purpose of the MEL it explicitly say that airworthiness is invalided by NON-MEL items, being inoperative yet does not differentiate the air from the ground--so as the actual MEL item serves as a limitation that has to be complied with pre-dispatch as per 129.14. b p1-7---landing gear is rarely a MEL item--and therefore there's nothing to consult---

As per QRH--- that is also for guidance--if a particular procedure is not working--it is up to the commander's discretion---now my systems knowledge on the types I've flown/fly is up to ATP standards--but I'm NOT qualified nor do I possess the training or material to deal with a unknown or recalcitrant or difficult to rectify mechanical defect--

---as I said ---such a procedure--- if written would have to work the very first time---unless there is a specific STC such as in your example--so in the interest of conservatism --MY decision would have been to land as MY butt on the line---because I don't like unknowns---a conservative decision can never be faulted whereas if an incident were to occur--even if you were exercising command discretion ----they [FAA etc] can always and will always fault you for taking the less conservative position---no matter what!!!

as far as the BA 3/4 well I'm not ready to re-initiate that debate:\--that my opinion--I'm not a lawyer--but the company -for me is on the ground an therefore nearly useless in the air


PA





§