Gulfstream landing w/o nosegear in LSZH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gulfstream landing w/o nosegear in LSZH
according a swiss newspaper website, a Gulfstream jet landed yesterday evening in Zurich with a retracted nose-gear... all occupants unhurt..
Does anybody have details?
tks
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news...ch/757407.html
Does anybody have details?
tks
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news...ch/757407.html
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: on a mountain top
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey...
I dont have details of the incident. But i was listening to ATC at the time.. the pilot just requested an emergency landing, then informed ATC that he wanted an extra time to dump fuel and prepare the pax. He kept his cool and things were sorted out within half and hour..
I dont have details of the incident. But i was listening to ATC at the time.. the pilot just requested an emergency landing, then informed ATC that he wanted an extra time to dump fuel and prepare the pax. He kept his cool and things were sorted out within half and hour..
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone, FAR 25-1001 (?) Fuel Jettison System, states that an aircraft must be able to satisfy the approach climb, landing climb criteria within 15 minutes of takeoff. With or without a fuel jettison system.
If an aircraft can satisfy the requirements without the fuel jettison system, it wont be installed, e.g. B737.
In some cases the fuel jettison system becomes an airline selectable option, e.g A330.
So it reasonable to get two different answers that will actually be correct as they will apply to the same model of aircraft but different certification requirements or purchased options.
Mutt
If an aircraft can satisfy the requirements without the fuel jettison system, it wont be installed, e.g. B737.
In some cases the fuel jettison system becomes an airline selectable option, e.g A330.
So it reasonable to get two different answers that will actually be correct as they will apply to the same model of aircraft but different certification requirements or purchased options.
Mutt
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: north america
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dumping fuel
Period. none of the Gulfstream 4 and 5 series incl 450 550 can dump fuel. that is the straight answer to this questions.
but than.. there is no such thing as a overweight landing in a g5 or 550 its a heavy weight landing and the onboard accelometers will determine if you need a inspection or not in case you once have to land over max landing weight.
and it is probably a good idea to burn of that extra fuel if your nose wheel is not down........ anyway.. good job you've done there dude in ZRH. i am proud of you... the beer is on me ..
CH
but than.. there is no such thing as a overweight landing in a g5 or 550 its a heavy weight landing and the onboard accelometers will determine if you need a inspection or not in case you once have to land over max landing weight.
and it is probably a good idea to burn of that extra fuel if your nose wheel is not down........ anyway.. good job you've done there dude in ZRH. i am proud of you... the beer is on me ..
CH
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Only upon request
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No such thing as an overweight landing in a G500/G550? I don't think so. How about, if you don't trigger any exceedences with your overweight landing, you do not have to do an inspection.
From Gulfstream; "There are procedures in Quick Reference Handbook that permit a landing beyond the normal landing weight with no follow-on Overweight Landing Inspection required. The QRH Overweight Landing procedures notes that "The overweight landing inspection is not required if the recorded landing vertical acceleration is within limits." If the maximum vertical acceleration recorded during a G500/G550 landing is within the parameters of this chart and no extremely high side loads were experienced, it is considered a normal landing and no inspection is required, regardless of the aircraft's weight."
From Gulfstream; "There are procedures in Quick Reference Handbook that permit a landing beyond the normal landing weight with no follow-on Overweight Landing Inspection required. The QRH Overweight Landing procedures notes that "The overweight landing inspection is not required if the recorded landing vertical acceleration is within limits." If the maximum vertical acceleration recorded during a G500/G550 landing is within the parameters of this chart and no extremely high side loads were experienced, it is considered a normal landing and no inspection is required, regardless of the aircraft's weight."
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Merriott, Somerset, UK
Age: 78
Posts: 229
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overweight landing inspection Gulfstream V from the engineering dept!
Gulfstream V Maintenance mannual Chap.5-50-00 page 618.
I quote:-
Para. b
'An immediate check of grease marks on the shock struts should be made. If main gear shock struts closed to within 1/2 inch of maximum available travel and nose gear closed to within 1 inch of the available travel, then this is evidence that limit vertical loads have been exceeded'
Para c
'was it a two or three point landing? (Most landings are two point and there is no need to worry about nose gear unless there is evidence that it was actually involved)
The aircraft in question definitely did a two point landing and the nose gear clearly did its best to stay uninvolved!!!!!
I quote:-
Para. b
'An immediate check of grease marks on the shock struts should be made. If main gear shock struts closed to within 1/2 inch of maximum available travel and nose gear closed to within 1 inch of the available travel, then this is evidence that limit vertical loads have been exceeded'
Para c
'was it a two or three point landing? (Most landings are two point and there is no need to worry about nose gear unless there is evidence that it was actually involved)
The aircraft in question definitely did a two point landing and the nose gear clearly did its best to stay uninvolved!!!!!
