JetBlue A320 landing at LAX
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
"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?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what I would have wanted if I was the pilot!
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.
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"?
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. 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
Well done to the crew anyway. I wish I could stay on the centerline like that !
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
"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!
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.
Great job!!!
P.S., The pax said they cut off the live TV ten minutes before landing.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we don't foam the runway anymore in some countries ?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 26
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ziggy
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.
Apparantly they disembarked the passengers using steps.
Sorry, deleted this post earlier, but in retrospect it still stands, even if it's a flippant comment.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 26
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
"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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think this incident at LAX will expose jetBlue's outsourcing of maintenance