Lowering landing gear whilst enroute?

[NotaLOT]

Hi All,

Not a pilot, but SLF with hundreds of flights flown. I have also worked in aviation (atc and airports) for the last 25 years.

I was on a flight yesterday, where 1hr into a 4hr flight I heard a noise and felt a vibration (for about 1minute) that felt like the spoliers had been deployed (but they weren't, I was sitting behind the wing). I asked the steward about this, and he told me that they had to lower and reraise the landing gear because the gear bay door did not close properly after departure and was causing drag. Apparently a "feature" on this particular aircraft he told me.

In all my flights I have never come across such a procedure. Is this something that still qualifies as "normal" action, or is this highly unusual. Most of all - is it safe to lower gear at this flight stage?

Thanks for your time reading - would be very interested to hear your views.

[NotaLOT]

I should add, it was an A320-200.

[AerocatS2A]

It is an unusual failure to have (most failures are unusual, we don't fly around having regular failures), but the response is correct, cycle the landing gear. Yes it is safe to lower the landing gear provided the appropriate speed is flown.

In all my flights I have never come across such a procedure.

​​​​​​​Most airline pilots will go their entire careers without having any major failures. Aircraft are reliable, you wouldn't expect, as a passenger or even a pilot, to experience much in the way of failures and their associated procedures.

[rudestuff]

I don't know about Airbus, but in the Boeing I fly you can put the gear down in cruise up to Mach .82 /270 knots.

I've never heard of anyone having a gear problem on departure then climbing to cruise altitude and waiting an hour to fix the issue, so it sounds like the steward was talking out of they/their ass...

[bafanguy]

I was on a flight yesterday, where 1hr into a 4hr flight I heard a noise and felt a vibration (for about 1minute) that felt like the spoliers had been deployed (but they weren't, I was sitting behind the wing). I asked the steward about this, and he told me that they had to lower and reraise the landing gear because the gear bay door did not close properly after departure and was causing drag.

Was an announcement made from the cockpit before they did this ?

[NotaLOT]

Thanks for all your responses. It was a bit disconcerting as there was no announcement from the cockpit either before or after, which is why I asked the cabin crew (it was a wet lease aircraft, maybe pax experience isn't something they care about as much as the regular airline would).

I was also wondering why they would do such a thing so far into the flight, would it be noticeable that the fuel burn was off only after a while? What was also troubling is that the crew seemed to accept this as "normal" - and that they have done the same procedure before on this particular aircraft.

[Denti]

I don't know about Airbus, but in the Boeing I fly you can put the gear down in cruise up to Mach .82 /270 knots.

I've never heard of anyone having a gear problem on departure then climbing to cruise altitude and waiting an hour to fix the issue, so it sounds like the steward was talking out of they/their ass...

Did exactly that during one flight. Discovered during the flight that the computed fuel burn on the OFP was way too high and that we would land overweight, so we dropped the gear (same limits you quote), and burned a ton extra in just a few minutes and then raised it again. Not a gear problem, just a flight planning system getting confused by the same trip number on two consecutive sectors, tankering and thus leading us to have too much fuel on board.

[pattern_is_full]

Why a gear event in cruise? Could be the door simply did not latch completely, and after an hour or so of being buffeted by slipstream, popped open a few cms. Probably in itself not even noticeable - but would trigger a GEAR DOOR warning on the cockpit displays.

Pilots followed "normal" procedures (as listed in ECAM or FCOM) to deal with this abnormal event. Slow to Vlo (speed for moving the landing gear) of 250 kts or mach 0.60 - cycle gear down and up.

Why not gab to the passengers about it? You happened to be awake and alert and noticed the gear noise. How many of the other passengers (possibly napping, or wearing headsets to work on their computers or watch a movie) noticed it?

I'd expect an actual announcement ("Houston, we have a problem...") would have disturbed more passengers than saying nothing and simply fixing the problem.

Never forget the priorities for pilots - Aviate, Navigate - and last, and therefore least - Communicate. Forty years of improving CRM (cockpit resource management) have taught us to beware of, and avoid, unnecessary distractions when dealing with a problem, or in any other critical phase of flight.

If the problem could not be solved, and would, perhaps, require a diversion - then (and only then) would the SLF have "a need to know."

[meleagertoo]

Did exactly that during one flight. Discovered during the flight that the computed fuel burn on the OFP was way too high and that we would land overweight, so we dropped the gear (same limits you quote), and burned a ton extra in just a few minutes and then raised it again. Not a gear problem, just a flight planning system getting confused by the same trip number on two consecutive sectors, tankering and thus leading us to have too much fuel on board.
I can't imagine a scenario where gear doors didn't latch (never heard of that as a known 320 habit...) nor that it's an hour later in the cruise that this is rectified. Why not asap as soon as the SID is out of the way, or even during it if things are quiet?
However an hour into the flight is just the right timescale for PNF to discover you're going to land overweight, for PF to verify the figures, a discusson to occur and some serious drag to be deployed. I've done it.
I know which theory I support.
And if so shame on the flightdeck for being so cowardly as to lie to the cabin crew about it, an action with all too much likelyhood of being found out - as seems to have happened.

It might be useful for the OP to tell what the route was, the diffferential in fuel prices might well be a driver for over-enthusiastic tankering.

[DaveReidUK]

However an hour into the flight is just the right timescale for PNF to discover you're going to land overweight, for PF to verify the figures, a discusson to occur and some serious drag to be deployed. I've done it.

Did you find that a minute with the gear down was sufficient to have the desired effect ?

[NotaLOT]

Why a gear event in cruise?

I'd expect an actual announcement ("Houston, we have a problem...") would have disturbed more passengers than saying nothing and simply fixing the problem.

If the problem could not be solved, and would, perhaps, require a diversion - then (and only then) would the SLF have "a need to know."

Thanks, this sounds rational to me. I guess I am more aware than your typical passenger, and most didn't notice, as you say.

[AerocatS2A]

I've never heard of anyone having a gear problem on departure then climbing to cruise altitude and waiting an hour to fix the issue, so it sounds like the steward was talking out of they/their ass...
It might not have presented until later. I've had a gear unsafe light come on about an hour into the cruise in a BAe146.

[washoutt]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is SLF? From the context, I would think something like Self loading Cargo, but then, what is the F?

[dixi188]

Exactly. "Self Loading Freight". It is a derogatory term used to describe passengers. I expect the PC/Woke brigade will be outraged.

[HOVIS]

F = Freight.

[nomilk]

Exactly. "Self Loading Freight". It is a derogatory term used to describe passengers. I expect the PC/Woke brigade will be outraged.No, just amazed at how childish grown people can be.

[blind pew]

What do you expect when the chosen few are given the odd hundred thousand to play with a multi million dollar toy set with dolly birds waiting to massage their egos!
From one who has never grown up.

[UnderASouthernSky]

How easy is to be over Max Landing Weight in an A320 after a 4 hour sector?

[ScepticalOptomist]

Exactly. "Self Loading Freight". It is a derogatory term used to describe passengers. I expect the PC/Woke brigade will be outraged.

Not a derogatory term - just a reference to passengers. See also “Punters”.

[dixi188]

Not a derogatory term - just a reference to passengers. See also “Punters”.
I think it is detogatory.
I used to fly cargo and we often had up to 6 Pax/ Jumpseaters. I used to check the tickets or authority to fly and usually referred to them as SLF in a derogatory fashion. ( They were mostly other crew or company staff).
My safety briefings were very brief. " Seat belt, Doors, Oxy mask, Life Jacket and Coffee maker".
Usually had them smiling.

[megan]

I refer to myself as SLF on these hallowed pages, I'll give myself a stern lecture on the derogatory usage.

[AerocatS2A]

I think there's a cohort of non-pilot aviation enthusiasts who are happy to be "SLF", but I suspect your average Joe boarding at the gate might take some offence. Like many things in life, context and intent play a big roll, know your audience.

[Boeingdriver999]

Hot Brakes. ECAM says put the gear down to cool them.

Was the taxi out long? BCN for example?

High temperature airport? Southern Hemisphere?

No brake fans in the 320? Older aircraft?

[BraceBrace]

How easy is to be over Max Landing Weight in an A320 after a 4 hour sector?

Flight time is not the problem, max payload is, many times combined with high diversion fuel requirements (I've had it on 1 hour flights and 4 hour flights, always freighters with max payload). Close to max payload, there is not much difference between MZFW and MLW. Any excess fuel because of ie shortened SID or big shortcuts will quickly make you "gain" the 200kg and make you overweight on the short sector. A short gear down is a quick and efficient solution. On longer flights it's much more fun to activate the afterburner and fly barber pole, or descend to very un-optimal flightlevels over longer periods.

[k.swiss]

Flight time is not the problem, max payload is, many times combined with high diversion fuel requirements (I've had it on 1 hour flights and 4 hour flights, always freighters with max payload). Close to max payload, there is not much difference between MZFW and MLW. Any excess fuel because of ie shortened SID or big shortcuts will quickly make you "gain" the 200kg and make you overweight on the short sector. A short gear down is a quick and efficient solution. On longer flights it's much more fun to activate the afterburner and fly barber pole, or descend to very un-optimal flightlevels over longer periods.

Wasting company fuel man.

[Vessbot]

Wasting company fuel man.
This is required to not exceed max landing weight. The fuel was wasted at the planning stage using a (usually) standard route, not expecting the shortcut.

What I'm wondering (having done this a few times myself, in a different type) why not burn the fuel using something more pedestrian like the spoilers, rather than the landing gear?

[k.swiss]

This is required to not exceed max landing weight. The fuel was wasted at the planning stage using a (usually) standard route, not expecting the shortcut.

What I'm wondering (having done this a few times myself, in a different type) why not burn the fuel using something more pedestrian like the spoilers, rather than the landing gear?

Or plan to land with less than 200KG from the landing weight. That will ensure any shortcut does not require more drastic measures.

Gear down will burn a lot more than spoilers.

[J.L.Seagull]

Or plan to land with less than 200KG from the landing weight. That will ensure any shortcut does not require more drastic measures.

You'd think that would be the obvious thing to do, but we get flight plans with the aircraft at MTOW, MLW and minimum fuel for the trip. No leeway to reduce fuel anywhere. This includes squeezing everything. Closest alternate; 3% ERA, shortest SID/STAR and at times planning for straight in/out runways.

So if the tailwind is good, or you get a few directs, or even asked to fly slow for separation, you end up a few kg overweight on landing.. hence configuring early just to land at MLW

[BraceBrace]

Gear down will burn a lot more than spoilers.

Just a question of time interval...

A spoiler is a flight control used to turn the aircraft. You can do a full flight gear down, but not spoilers up. I invite you to fly spoilers out for a couple of minutes, even making turns, or in turbulence,... I’m pretty old school and prefer to completely avoid spoilers in turns.

So you speed up, descend early or get the gear out. Flying around with the spoilers extended for minutes is not my prefered choice.

[rudestuff]

Wasting company fuel man.
Try taking extra payload equal to your contingency fuel. Greta would be so pleased..

[k.swiss]

You'd think that would be the obvious thing to do, but we get flight plans with the aircraft at MTOW, MLW and minimum fuel for the trip. No leeway to reduce fuel anywhere. This includes squeezing everything. Closest alternate; 3% ERA, shortest SID/STAR and at times planning for straight in/out runways.

So if the tailwind is good, or you get a few directs, or even asked to fly slow for separation, you end up a few kg overweight on landing.. hence configuring early just to land at MLW

Fair enough man, sounds interesting.

[Zar_1]

Another reason to potentially extend landing gear (though not so late in cruise), is for a brake temp warning, usually caused by:

1. Dragging brakes (on taxi/takeoff)
2. In an aircraft with brake fans, the indicators show a significantly lower than actual temperature when the fans are on, so when they get switched off, the indicated temperature spikes up, to the real temperature. (In my sim, its around 120-150 Celsius, the temp. spike)

You can potentially anticipate this, to keep the LDG extended for a little more while, performance permitting, of course. Otherwise, a nice lil ECAM warning reminds you to do so (it waits until T/O Inhibit is cleared).

[rigpiggy]

Not a derogatory term - just a reference to passengers. See also “Punters”.. Meats&Cheeses

[ScepticalOptomist]

I think there's a cohort of non-pilot aviation enthusiasts who are happy to be "SLF", but I suspect your average Joe boarding at the gate might take some offence. Like many things in life, context and intent play a big roll, know your audience.

To be fair the “average Joe” is offended by anything these days.