JetBlue A320 landing at LAX
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a recurring problem has happened SEVEN (7) times, is it not a design flaw, not due to defective MX? Same with the famous 737 rudder design flaw, and the DC10 cargo door; if it happens more than, say, 3 times, forget maintenance...go to the designers. They'd damn well better fix this!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a recurring problem has happened SEVEN (7) times, is it not a design flaw, not due to defective MX? Same with the famous 737 rudder design flaw, and the DC10 cargo door; if it happens more than, say, 3 times, forget maintenance...go to the designers. They'd damn well better fix this!
737 Rudder issues = lots of dead people, due to a "lose aircraft" design problem.
DC10 Cargo Door likewise
A32x NW Steering. It is a designed in failure mode. For specified fault(s) the NW is designed to run to 90 degrees. I see no evidence that all 7 occurences are due to the same root cause (there have been 'O' ring problems, incorrect maintenance, maybe others?) - it is the employment of the designed safety mode that mitigates these various other faults.
So by all means lets encourage Airbus and the various Safety Bodies work on removing the root causes - as I am sure they are. But I cannot understand why you want this design feature removed?
The "hazard" to the Pax/Crew/Aircraft is minimal - in the UA case the crew were unaware until someway through the landing roll. If you want to just remove this design feature and have the various causes lead to random NW angles, then I suggest you fly on 737s, and suffer results like the KLM 737 @ BCN (aircraft written off, Pax/Crew OK but only by luck - aircraft could not be kept on runway and ended up stopping just in front of deep/wide water filled ditch - in there would have likely equalled fatalities).
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is designed to run to 90 degrees, why can't they design it to run to 0 degrees?
There are plenty of other failure cases on the Airbus where you lose NWS, and have 0 degrees....
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to centering cams at the botom of the NLG shock struts as on OLD aircraft 
Ah doesnt need a computer that could be the problem
It may be senility but I dont seem to remember all these nose wheel incidents in the "old days"
Of course we did have a few problems with the tail wheel centering locks !
Ah doesnt need a computer that could be the problem
It may be senility but I dont seem to remember all these nose wheel incidents in the "old days"
Of course we did have a few problems with the tail wheel centering locks !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that Airbus have this matter now under control.
Jet Blue A320 Nose Landing Gear Incident at LAX
"The investigation into the Jet Blue event will be clearly focused on the Nose Landing Gear. Whilst it is premature to draw any conclusions concerning this event; two incidents have previously been reported where a landing was carried out with the nose landing gear (NLG) wheels at 90 degrees to the aircraft centerline. Both events occurred a few days after a NLG shock absorber dynamic seal replacement.
The checks performed after the events revealed an incorrect installation of the NLG shock absorber in the NLG leg. The upper cam was rotated from its original position by one dowel creating an offset of 20 to 30 degrees. Therefore, the lugs of the piston of the shock absorber were not properly engaged by maintenance into the slots of the shock absorber backplate, to compensate the cam offset.
On landing, the NLG tyres quickly deflated and were torn apart. Both wheels were worn away up to the wheel axle.
Maintenance Manual procedures have been amended adding additional steps to ensure correct cam alignment.
Airbus has reviewed the NLG shock absorber backplate design and has introduced a full proof device (modified upper support) which aims to avoid the possibility of errors in maintenance installation".
Jet Blue A320 Nose Landing Gear Incident at LAX
"The investigation into the Jet Blue event will be clearly focused on the Nose Landing Gear. Whilst it is premature to draw any conclusions concerning this event; two incidents have previously been reported where a landing was carried out with the nose landing gear (NLG) wheels at 90 degrees to the aircraft centerline. Both events occurred a few days after a NLG shock absorber dynamic seal replacement.
The checks performed after the events revealed an incorrect installation of the NLG shock absorber in the NLG leg. The upper cam was rotated from its original position by one dowel creating an offset of 20 to 30 degrees. Therefore, the lugs of the piston of the shock absorber were not properly engaged by maintenance into the slots of the shock absorber backplate, to compensate the cam offset.
On landing, the NLG tyres quickly deflated and were torn apart. Both wheels were worn away up to the wheel axle.
Maintenance Manual procedures have been amended adding additional steps to ensure correct cam alignment.
Airbus has reviewed the NLG shock absorber backplate design and has introduced a full proof device (modified upper support) which aims to avoid the possibility of errors in maintenance installation".
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by kurrent; 5th Oct 2005 at 00:44.
KC-10 Driver: this may have no connection to the A-320 incident, but several months ago, the "Wall Street Journal" had a feature article about airlines' "outsourced maintenance". The article stated that about a third of JetBlue's aircraft go once a year to San Salvador, El Salvador, for heavy maintenance checks.
The article also described a concern that among a given crew of mechanics at a given airplane which undergoes "outsourced maintenance", only the supervisor is required to be FAA-licensed, whether in the US or in a foreign country; but, if they are airline staff, then they must all be FAA-licensed, is this not true? Let's not forget what happened to a Valuejet JT8D on the runway in ATL. Maybe the foreign country or facility where the engines were overhauled is not the issue, but then, Valuejet made some of its profits by skimping on anything which was allowed by the FAA. Aftyer the crash, I watched "NBC Evening News" as the so-called Valuejet VP of Maintenance, sitting before Congress, claimed that he was not really responsible for technical issues...eh.... their maintenance was all "outsourced". One of our FOs was a captain there after he left TAC in the AF.
Whether this is a legitimate safety concern, I don't know. One such maint. facility almost lost a contract with a major US airline a few years ago, due to numerous faults in some aircraft, as they flew passengers following the maint. ferry flights. I talked to an experienced airline crew chief who was required to work with the contract mechanics, in order to verify that the correct work was done-otherwise, that facility ('down there')would have lost our contract for heavy checks. He picked us up at the airport and drove us nearby to the "outsourced" hangar where our plane waited. It had no problem when we flew it to the hub.
On the other hand, I once flew a plane (luckily in good VMC) from a [then] company hangar to a northern hub. Upon arrival, we wrote up at least four major problems (left radio went dead on final approach, APU rpm erratic, standby ADI precessed too much...), a master warning light mysteriously came on...).
The article also described a concern that among a given crew of mechanics at a given airplane which undergoes "outsourced maintenance", only the supervisor is required to be FAA-licensed, whether in the US or in a foreign country; but, if they are airline staff, then they must all be FAA-licensed, is this not true? Let's not forget what happened to a Valuejet JT8D on the runway in ATL. Maybe the foreign country or facility where the engines were overhauled is not the issue, but then, Valuejet made some of its profits by skimping on anything which was allowed by the FAA. Aftyer the crash, I watched "NBC Evening News" as the so-called Valuejet VP of Maintenance, sitting before Congress, claimed that he was not really responsible for technical issues...eh.... their maintenance was all "outsourced". One of our FOs was a captain there after he left TAC in the AF.
Whether this is a legitimate safety concern, I don't know. One such maint. facility almost lost a contract with a major US airline a few years ago, due to numerous faults in some aircraft, as they flew passengers following the maint. ferry flights. I talked to an experienced airline crew chief who was required to work with the contract mechanics, in order to verify that the correct work was done-otherwise, that facility ('down there')would have lost our contract for heavy checks. He picked us up at the airport and drove us nearby to the "outsourced" hangar where our plane waited. It had no problem when we flew it to the hub.
On the other hand, I once flew a plane (luckily in good VMC) from a [then] company hangar to a northern hub. Upon arrival, we wrote up at least four major problems (left radio went dead on final approach, APU rpm erratic, standby ADI precessed too much...), a master warning light mysteriously came on...).
Last edited by Ignition Override; 7th Oct 2005 at 06:37.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A32x NW Steering. It is a designed in failure mode. For specified fault(s) the NW is designed to run to 90 degrees.
Algy: Thanks, that article is interesting.
I am skeptical that the JetBlue VP is either completely honest, or "accurate", about how many planes undergo heavy checks, at least in whichever country.
Who knows, maybe both the writer and editor of the "Wall Street Journal" article, which I read, copied and showed to other pilots, got it wrong.
The brand-new JetBlue A-320s were either a gift or a free loan from Airbus, for a while. They reportedly paid almost nothing for the first year or so of operations. If this can be proven, was this "competitive marketing", in order to artificially inflate "orders" at a major international airshow, and impress various airlines with the implication (by deception?), that the aircraft were producing revenue for Airbus? The spare parts are supposedly the trick. Sometime, when the dust settles here, I'll ask 'R.'. Who knows, maybe even Boeing, Fokker or Dornier etc gave away aircraft, at least for a while, to an airline, in order to trumpet the new numbers to the world's aviation press.
I am skeptical that the JetBlue VP is either completely honest, or "accurate", about how many planes undergo heavy checks, at least in whichever country.
Who knows, maybe both the writer and editor of the "Wall Street Journal" article, which I read, copied and showed to other pilots, got it wrong.
The brand-new JetBlue A-320s were either a gift or a free loan from Airbus, for a while. They reportedly paid almost nothing for the first year or so of operations. If this can be proven, was this "competitive marketing", in order to artificially inflate "orders" at a major international airshow, and impress various airlines with the implication (by deception?), that the aircraft were producing revenue for Airbus? The spare parts are supposedly the trick. Sometime, when the dust settles here, I'll ask 'R.'. Who knows, maybe even Boeing, Fokker or Dornier etc gave away aircraft, at least for a while, to an airline, in order to trumpet the new numbers to the world's aviation press.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 7th Oct 2005 at 06:54.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override
Please note that the Jetblue A320 contracts can be found online, your comments may need editing after you read the contracts.
http://contracts.onecle.com/jetblue/...01.12.31.shtml
http://contracts.onecle.com/jetblue/...00.11.07.shtml
Be interested in the caluse that says "gift", "free loan", "pay nothing"...I cannot see it.
Algy: Thanks, that article is interesting.
I am skeptical that the JetBlue VP is either completely honest, or "accurate", about how many planes undergo heavy checks, at least in whichever country.
Who knows, maybe both the writer and editor of the "Wall Street Journal" article, which I read, copied and showed to other pilots, got it wrong.
The brand-new JetBlue A-320s were either a gift or a free loan from Airbus, for a while. They reportedly paid almost nothing for the first year or so of operations. If this can be proven, was this "competitive marketing", in order to artificially inflate "orders" at a major international airshow, and impress various airlines with the implication (by deception?), that the aircraft were producing revenue for Airbus? The spare parts are supposedly the trick. Sometime, when the dust settles here, I'll ask 'R.'. Who knows, maybe even Boeing, Fokker or Dornier etc gave away aircraft, at least for a while, to an airline, in order to trumpet the new numbers to the world's aviation press.
I am skeptical that the JetBlue VP is either completely honest, or "accurate", about how many planes undergo heavy checks, at least in whichever country.
Who knows, maybe both the writer and editor of the "Wall Street Journal" article, which I read, copied and showed to other pilots, got it wrong.
The brand-new JetBlue A-320s were either a gift or a free loan from Airbus, for a while. They reportedly paid almost nothing for the first year or so of operations. If this can be proven, was this "competitive marketing", in order to artificially inflate "orders" at a major international airshow, and impress various airlines with the implication (by deception?), that the aircraft were producing revenue for Airbus? The spare parts are supposedly the trick. Sometime, when the dust settles here, I'll ask 'R.'. Who knows, maybe even Boeing, Fokker or Dornier etc gave away aircraft, at least for a while, to an airline, in order to trumpet the new numbers to the world's aviation press.
http://contracts.onecle.com/jetblue/...01.12.31.shtml
http://contracts.onecle.com/jetblue/...00.11.07.shtml
Be interested in the caluse that says "gift", "free loan", "pay nothing"...I cannot see it.
"If a recurring problem has happened SEVEN (7) times, is it not a design flaw, not due to defective MX? "
Twice in the last week 747's landed with 3 out of the 4 main gear fully deployed (Air Atlanta, All Nippon). I would not then jump to the colclusion the 747 has a design flaw.
Twice in the last week 747's landed with 3 out of the 4 main gear fully deployed (Air Atlanta, All Nippon). I would not then jump to the colclusion the 747 has a design flaw.
OK Zeke: maybe I was mistaken. The planes were apparently not free, but at first glance almost no numbers were to be found.
But what is the lease rate per aircraft, and are the lease rates heavily subsidized?
But what is the lease rate per aircraft, and are the lease rates heavily subsidized?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet II
For Flt Crew, Abn & Emergs Book (known as 'Book 3') details it under various L/G procedures / ECAM warnings...
HTH
NoD
NoD - where did you get this information from? I checked yesterday in the servicing manuals and on Airbus tech docs support web-site and I can find nothing about any failure mode that would position the NWS to 90 degrees.
HTH
NoD
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's also an item in the A320 Troubleshooting manual that describes the steps to take if the a/c lands with nose wheels at 90 degrees.
Replacing the servo valve is on the list - naturally incorrect assembly of the nose gear isn't.....
Replacing the servo valve is on the list - naturally incorrect assembly of the nose gear isn't.....
