View Full Version : LGW: A320 taxiies onto the grass? - Or was it pushed?!!

22nd Jul 2003, 05:20
Overheard on LGW tower at 19:45 tonight, "GB50M" was stuck at the holding point for quite some time. Their pilot gave an interesting commentary - his final words being "I think we've left two large holes in the grass". The tower replied "I know".

Anyone able to expand on what EXACTLY happened - wasn't paying too much attention until I heard a Leader vehicle get involved... (Well yes I know I should have being paying attention - but you know what I mean..!!)

22nd Jul 2003, 15:39
Sounds like tea and no biscuits with uncle Bill..........:{

23rd Jul 2003, 01:27
Heard thru the grape-vine that the front nose wheel "sunk into the tarmac"...

Perhaps Uncle Bill may get the biscuits out for Uncle Bob after all!...


heavy glider
23rd Jul 2003, 07:11
i saw and heard what happened from the 'front' of the aircraft i was in. a BA airbus was stuck next to M1 at the holding point for 26L. he couldn't release his parking brake. after some time and a bit of help from engineers, a tug pushed the aircraft back by lifting the nosewheel, and i was under the impression that this had increased the load on the main gear causing two 'holes' in the taxiway he was parked on. Not the grass. maybe the ba crew operating can confirm this?:confused:

23rd Jul 2003, 11:11
Heavy Glider:

sorry but your hypothesis is extremely unlikely...

Firstly, most of the pushback tugs used by BA at LGW lift the nosewheel off the ground anyway..also - i can't speak for the airbus..but very few aircraft if any have brake units on the nosegear, therefore lifting the nosewheel would not be a solution to seized brakes.

Lastly, I doubt very much that a BA operating crew could help with info on this "incident" - since BA do not operate Airbuses out of LGW (yet). It would have been a GB Airways aircraft operated by GB Airways crew - they are a franchise - a totally seperate, privately owned company who operate in BA colours and with BA flight numbers..



23rd Jul 2003, 16:43

Were you just feeling a bit bitchy when you made your reply?

Apply a little common sense!!

It's obvious the brakes are on the MLG (at least on all the airbuses that I've had the pleasure of attacking) - pilot reports brakes may be seized - engineering after a bit of debate and consultation with maintrol decide to push the aircraft back in order to see if that will solve the seized brakes problem - how do they push back the aircraft?

You did notice that heavy glider said he saw and heard - not that he was hypothesizing?

yoohoo sista!
23rd Jul 2003, 17:55
Yep guys, you forgot to mention that not only do they operate flights on behalf of BA, but they get paid considerably less for doing so...

23rd Jul 2003, 21:23
Sorry Panman, but no...not being bitchy at all....maybe just your interpretation, but i was simply trying to be 'as matter as fact'.

I was referring to the 'impression' that lifting the nose gear and putting load on the MLG would cause the wheels to sink into the tarmac! If that was the case there would be aeroplanes sinking into the taxiways every 10 minutes at LGW...



23rd Jul 2003, 23:29
Yep guys, you forgot to mention that not only do they operate flights on behalf of BA, but they get paid considerably less for doing so...

Is that so Yoooohooosista?

Please post your proof. Last time I looked I earned about the same.

yoohoo sista!
25th Jul 2003, 23:29
Land asap, you must have been sniffing all that carbon monoxide in the cabin at work...oh dearie me, it's affecting your eyesight or has the print on your payslip just got smaller...

26th Jul 2003, 00:07
FYI ...Once flew a B727-200 with Nose Wheel Brakes

Onan the Clumsy
26th Jul 2003, 02:31
Speaking as a physisist (which I'm not), lifting up the nose gear wouldn't increase the weight on the mains by any noticable amount until the angle between the fuselage and the ground passed 25 degrees. A simple force diagram will confirm this.


/ /
o | o

If the a/c above has an arm of twenty between the cg and the nosegear and 1 between the cg and the mains, then if the whole thing weighs 100 lbs, the mains will be carrying...ok if aircraft weighs 210lbs, the mains'll be holding up 200 of them and the nosegear a mere 10.

Can I stop now? :8

26th Jul 2003, 05:03
Is it really that complicated, Onan ?

Whatever weight the nosewheel was bearing is now being borne by whatever is lifting the nosewheel. Weight on the mains is the same.

26th Jul 2003, 07:53
Once the angle passes ten degrees or so, some of the weight will be borne by the tailcone:uhoh:

Not enough brain cells left to do the trig anymore:confused:

Onan the Clumsy
26th Jul 2003, 08:57
PT - that's what I thought at first too, but actually, if you tip it up far enough, the cg will end up directly over the mains and there'll be no weight at all on the nlg. Like my cat at breakfast time :)

...apart from what RBF said of course.

RBF - very funny. I like it ;)

29th Jul 2003, 23:06
The story I heard was that it was a very very hot day. The nose wheel sank into the soft tarmac while waiting for line up clearance. Because the pilot couldn't move the aircaraft with loads of power on, he assumed the brakes must be binding. This turned out to be a red herring and confused the engineers and others who came to help, and who didn't immediately spot the ridges/chocks of tarmac infront and behind the nosegear - all the attention was on the mainwheel brakes. Eventually it was realised that it was the tarmac that was to blame.
As for planes with nosewheel brakes - the B727 that I used to fly had them.