Embraer Gear Problem Boston. more
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CGN
Age: 53
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do American Eagle use flap 22 or flap 45 as the default setting for landing ?.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was obviously a fault with the LGEU giving the crew the 3 green indication and not allowing the EGPWS to signal any warning at all. There would have been warnings at a flaps 45 selection and at 1200' on the RA if the computer didn't "think" the gear was down. The safegaurd in the system is the "LG LEVER DISAGREE" EICAS message that the crew claims they didn't realize untill it was time to go around, not realizing this seems unlikley because it is presented on the EICAS in an amber color with a audible chime.
One would think (but we don't know all the details) If the crew had followed the QRH (emergency abnormal procedures checklist) they would have not have had the incident they did. The boys at EMB have already issued letters to other operators asking them to "follow the QRH in the event of a LG LEVER DISAGREE message on the EICAS".
In response to other questions, the EMB-135/145 is noisy when the gear comes down because the nose gear doors are right under the cockpit, because those opened I imagine it would sound like the gear was functioning normally. The engine spool up time from approach thrust at 60%-68% N1 to TO/GA thrust on the 135-145 is right around 2 secconds at most. The engines are incredibly fast spooling and quite small for dual spool turbofans. A spool up from idle could take 5 secconds or so however.
After flying the EMB-135/145 family of aircraft for a while it isn't hard to imagine a computer problem like this I feel like every leg there is something wrong with the various system automation and we have a good MX department.
One would think (but we don't know all the details) If the crew had followed the QRH (emergency abnormal procedures checklist) they would have not have had the incident they did. The boys at EMB have already issued letters to other operators asking them to "follow the QRH in the event of a LG LEVER DISAGREE message on the EICAS".
In response to other questions, the EMB-135/145 is noisy when the gear comes down because the nose gear doors are right under the cockpit, because those opened I imagine it would sound like the gear was functioning normally. The engine spool up time from approach thrust at 60%-68% N1 to TO/GA thrust on the 135-145 is right around 2 secconds at most. The engines are incredibly fast spooling and quite small for dual spool turbofans. A spool up from idle could take 5 secconds or so however.
After flying the EMB-135/145 family of aircraft for a while it isn't hard to imagine a computer problem like this I feel like every leg there is something wrong with the various system automation and we have a good MX department.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with the gear retracted, even with nose gear door open, there would be less drag during approach
ergo
less thrust required by engines to maintain glideslope
engines near idle? longer spool up for go around
and another warning to pilots something ain't right...however a tailwind aloft might do the same.
let us all be learning something from this one
and viva less automation!
ergo
less thrust required by engines to maintain glideslope
engines near idle? longer spool up for go around
and another warning to pilots something ain't right...however a tailwind aloft might do the same.
let us all be learning something from this one
and viva less automation!
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a tailwind aloft might do the same
He was on a downwind for a visual and was told to "keep it in tight" because of an emergency aircraft inbound.
High descent rate + power way back = abnormal power settings and sounds. Combined with some breakers pulled for flight test --- the impossible happened.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bomarc,
Interesting point about thrust. Of course, the gear going down provides an initial punch of drag that you would expect to notice and counter with thrust, however gear and flap 22 selection usually follow in quick succession and the thrust change required with the flap could be enough to fool the senses. I have flown this aircraft for a few thousand hours, and I only look at the thrust set once or twice on the approach for confirmation, and then only once flap 45 is set. It's all done by feel and with a wary eye on the airspeed.
The thrust and pitch change when 45 is set is significant and on the day could easily have resulted in a similar power setting to the norm, especially if there was a significant headwind. Normal approach is 63% plus or minus quite a lot. This is an airplane where you cannot just set thrust and forget it. In tricky conditions, you have to work the thrust continually (no autothrust) and that combined with the concorde style yoke means that on a gusty day, the PF looks like what I describe as a (please excuse the phrase, it's not politically correct) 'spastic at the gym'.
As I see it, the only mistake here was that an EICAS message 'may' have been ignored. As someone has said, confirmation bias and complacency may be a factor.
Yesterday (my last on type) I had the comms hatch pop open in descent. That gave one hell of a thump and then resulted in significant wind noise. That hatch is only about 5 inches round, so it's reasonable to assume that the great big nose gear doors opening on their own would also be quite loud enough to trick the senses.
There were significant tech issues in the early days, but with good maintenance most of these have been ironed out. The EICAS cautions / warnings and resulting 'ding' ceased to raise the heart rate a long time ago because of the cry wolf syndrome. There were often spurious messages, many of which come and go of their own accord. Maybe this happened here? Nevertheless, it pays to check 'em all out.
For all its faults, the EMB is a great little airplane to fly. I am going to miss it!
Interesting point about thrust. Of course, the gear going down provides an initial punch of drag that you would expect to notice and counter with thrust, however gear and flap 22 selection usually follow in quick succession and the thrust change required with the flap could be enough to fool the senses. I have flown this aircraft for a few thousand hours, and I only look at the thrust set once or twice on the approach for confirmation, and then only once flap 45 is set. It's all done by feel and with a wary eye on the airspeed.
The thrust and pitch change when 45 is set is significant and on the day could easily have resulted in a similar power setting to the norm, especially if there was a significant headwind. Normal approach is 63% plus or minus quite a lot. This is an airplane where you cannot just set thrust and forget it. In tricky conditions, you have to work the thrust continually (no autothrust) and that combined with the concorde style yoke means that on a gusty day, the PF looks like what I describe as a (please excuse the phrase, it's not politically correct) 'spastic at the gym'.
As I see it, the only mistake here was that an EICAS message 'may' have been ignored. As someone has said, confirmation bias and complacency may be a factor.
Yesterday (my last on type) I had the comms hatch pop open in descent. That gave one hell of a thump and then resulted in significant wind noise. That hatch is only about 5 inches round, so it's reasonable to assume that the great big nose gear doors opening on their own would also be quite loud enough to trick the senses.
There were significant tech issues in the early days, but with good maintenance most of these have been ironed out. The EICAS cautions / warnings and resulting 'ding' ceased to raise the heart rate a long time ago because of the cry wolf syndrome. There were often spurious messages, many of which come and go of their own accord. Maybe this happened here? Nevertheless, it pays to check 'em all out.
For all its faults, the EMB is a great little airplane to fly. I am going to miss it!
Last edited by G-LOST; 28th Jun 2007 at 18:15.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there is a bit of a clunk, but it's muffled by the noise from the gear doors. Not too dramatic, although it varies from one aircraft to another. We had one that was particularly 'clunky' and felt like it was going to chuck the nosegear away from the aircraft as it locked down, but that soon got fixed... I think the point here is that it would be easy to miss these cues if the crew were particularly busy or distracted. This is a noisy aircraft to operate and there are all sorts of air conditioning pack / display fan / window seal noises that come and go on a regular basis. After a while your brain zones it all out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand g lost. being a tail mounted jet, I thought it would be quieter somehow.
the dc9 was so quiet in the cockpit that pilots have been known to forget to shut down the engines at the gate. so the clunk was there.
I often worry about modern pilots, in so much of a hurry to help ATC, to save minutes and fuel...that they don't have time to sense the subtle changes in a plane.
the dc9 was so quiet in the cockpit that pilots have been known to forget to shut down the engines at the gate. so the clunk was there.
I often worry about modern pilots, in so much of a hurry to help ATC, to save minutes and fuel...that they don't have time to sense the subtle changes in a plane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
June 29, 2007
************************************************************
NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING GEAR MALFUNCTION
************************************************************
Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board
is investigating an incident in Boston that occurred on June
20, 2007, in which an American Eagle Embraer ERJ-135
regional jet briefly touched down on the runway without the
landing gear extended before initiating a go-around and
completing a second landing attempt.
None of the 37 passengers or 3 crewmembers was
injured. The aircraft sustained minor damage. The event is
being investigated as an incident.
Prior to the first landing attempt in which the gear
was not extended, the crew stated that the three landing
gear indicator lights were all green, indicating that the
gear was down and locked. Shortly before touchdown they
noticed a "landing gear lever disagree" message on a flight
computer console.
After the jet contacted the runway, a go-around
procedure was initiated. The crew extended the gear by
following the emergency abnormal landing gear procedure,
then flew by the control tower twice for a visual inspection
to ensure the gear was down prior to the second landing
attempt.
At this point in the investigation the following has
been accomplished:
In an initial test, the incident aircraft was placed
on jacks and investigators duplicated the in-flight
situation: Three green lights in the cockpit indicated the
gear was down and locked but none of the gear extended.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder
were sent to the Safety Board's laboratory in Washington
last week where the content of each is being evaluated.
Both members of the flight crew were interviewed this
week.
An electronic component of the landing gear control
system, made by Parker Aerospace, was bench tested this week
at their facility in New York. The same unit, with small
modifications, was then placed in a different airplane and
the indications were once again duplicated.
Embraer issued a "Field Service Letter" late last week
to all operators of the EMB-135, -140, and -145 models,
reminding pilots to follow the checklist in the case of a
"landing gear disagree" message.
The Federal Aviation Administration, Parker Aerospace,
American Eagle and Embraer are working with the Safety Board
as the investigation continues.
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
June 29, 2007
************************************************************
NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING GEAR MALFUNCTION
************************************************************
Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board
is investigating an incident in Boston that occurred on June
20, 2007, in which an American Eagle Embraer ERJ-135
regional jet briefly touched down on the runway without the
landing gear extended before initiating a go-around and
completing a second landing attempt.
None of the 37 passengers or 3 crewmembers was
injured. The aircraft sustained minor damage. The event is
being investigated as an incident.
Prior to the first landing attempt in which the gear
was not extended, the crew stated that the three landing
gear indicator lights were all green, indicating that the
gear was down and locked. Shortly before touchdown they
noticed a "landing gear lever disagree" message on a flight
computer console.
After the jet contacted the runway, a go-around
procedure was initiated. The crew extended the gear by
following the emergency abnormal landing gear procedure,
then flew by the control tower twice for a visual inspection
to ensure the gear was down prior to the second landing
attempt.
At this point in the investigation the following has
been accomplished:
In an initial test, the incident aircraft was placed
on jacks and investigators duplicated the in-flight
situation: Three green lights in the cockpit indicated the
gear was down and locked but none of the gear extended.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder
were sent to the Safety Board's laboratory in Washington
last week where the content of each is being evaluated.
Both members of the flight crew were interviewed this
week.
An electronic component of the landing gear control
system, made by Parker Aerospace, was bench tested this week
at their facility in New York. The same unit, with small
modifications, was then placed in a different airplane and
the indications were once again duplicated.
Embraer issued a "Field Service Letter" late last week
to all operators of the EMB-135, -140, and -145 models,
reminding pilots to follow the checklist in the case of a
"landing gear disagree" message.
The Federal Aviation Administration, Parker Aerospace,
American Eagle and Embraer are working with the Safety Board
as the investigation continues.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got over 5,000 hrs in the Barbie.
Never seen any aircraft go round off a wheels up approach EVER.
OK, She may be piss-poor on a windy night
...........But
There's more to the Barbie-Jet than some folk think.
Never seen any aircraft go round off a wheels up approach EVER.
OK, She may be piss-poor on a windy night
...........ButThere's more to the Barbie-Jet than some folk think.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In front of the computer
Age: 53
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been trying to figure out why (how) this happened etc from the wiring manuals but it's got me totally foxed. There's so many indications that should have gone off, gear disagree warning and associated chimes etc and then the green down and locked box(es) should have turned red, aswell as all the others already mentioned. Very weird indeed.
I guess when Parker figure out what went wrong with the LGEU they will modify it and issue an alert SB to replace it on every plane, to ensure this never happens again.
I guess when Parker figure out what went wrong with the LGEU they will modify it and issue an alert SB to replace it on every plane, to ensure this never happens again.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: key biscayne
Age: 61
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the float was the wing being close enough to the ground to multiply ground effect.
It guess they touched down lightly enough to not cause a change in pitch from the contact of the runway which would have made go around impossible.
In 1985, I saw a mooney land gear up and go around at W10 (manassas, va) and he went around to return and land.
When he landed, the prop tips had lost near equal amount of tip to the tune of 1.5 inches.
As far as control units, anything can happen with electronic control units and I have seen some really strange things happen as an engineer at standard motor products ecu division.
I'm wondering why modifications were required to test the suspect unit in another plane as that could taint the testing.
It guess they touched down lightly enough to not cause a change in pitch from the contact of the runway which would have made go around impossible.
In 1985, I saw a mooney land gear up and go around at W10 (manassas, va) and he went around to return and land.
When he landed, the prop tips had lost near equal amount of tip to the tune of 1.5 inches.
As far as control units, anything can happen with electronic control units and I have seen some really strange things happen as an engineer at standard motor products ecu division.
I'm wondering why modifications were required to test the suspect unit in another plane as that could taint the testing.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps its not worded well; maybe the "small modifications" were to the rest of the second aircraft, to make it similar to the first one?
Suppose the first aircraft was found to have a disabled sensor; perhaps you'd also disable that sensor on the second aircraft to check the LGEU responded to the same stimuli.
Suppose the first aircraft was found to have a disabled sensor; perhaps you'd also disable that sensor on the second aircraft to check the LGEU responded to the same stimuli.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ctl + Alt + Del
I've been trying to figure out why (how) this happened etc from the wiring manuals but it's got me totally foxed. There's so many indications that should have gone off, gear disagree warning and associated chimes etc and then the green down and locked box(es) should have turned red, as well as all the others already mentioned.
The LG/LVR DISAG message was present, but accompanied by three green boxes.
Sim instructors have mentioned that the malfunction menu for the LG/DISAG fault requires that the instructor also designate which gear will be not-down.
If Embraer and/or Parker were aware of the possibility of a "3-green + disagree" failure mode, why wasn't it included in the simulator repertoire?
Given the continuing expansion of the "CLT + ALT + DEL" culture amongst pilots and engineers, it's not particularly surprising that the CAS message wasn't given sufficient credibility.
How many times per week do pilots encounter invalid CAS messages or fault codes?
How many of these "bogus" indications are resolved by re-booting, with no action beyond that?
"Successful resets" -- wish that the term could be banned from aviation.
(Remember G-VATL?)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sim instructors have mentioned that the malfunction menu for the LG/DISAG fault requires that the instructor also designate which gear will be not-down.
If Embraer and/or Parker were aware of the possibility of a "3-green + disagree" failure mode, why wasn't it included in the simulator repertoire?
There's only so much you can uncover in a cert test programme - you're lucky if you get much over a couple of thousand hours time, max. Any decent-sized in-service fleet is racking up more than that per-day, so its not surprising we find things out in-service.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never flown an EMB 135/145
you don't have to listen to my advice
but until this situation is fully resolved I would put the gear down 2000'AFE and make darn sure about the gear prior to the marker.
imagine another scenario...you takeoff, lose an engine and pull the gear up...it shows up but isn't...now too much drag and you can't climb well.
ouch.
HEY, didn't PARKER aero build the rudder unit on the 737?
YIKES
you don't have to listen to my advice
but until this situation is fully resolved I would put the gear down 2000'AFE and make darn sure about the gear prior to the marker.
imagine another scenario...you takeoff, lose an engine and pull the gear up...it shows up but isn't...now too much drag and you can't climb well.
ouch.
HEY, didn't PARKER aero build the rudder unit on the 737?
YIKES
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: IOM
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LG/LEVER disagree EICAS message is a warning, not a caution, and has the higher priority audio/visual(red) message generated.
The Embraer 145 QRH, which I have in front of me now, says that if such a message is received, the gear is to be cycled. If the message persists and the gear is to be selected down, then the abnormal landing gear extension procedure is to be used.
However, the drill does suggest in the preamble that that there would be a 'landing gear abnormal indication' indicated on the EICAS. There wasn't in this case.
Like many, I've always been told to trust what the gear indicator is showing - if you've got three greens, the gear is definitely down. It's changed my way of thinking for sure.
One last point, isn't it is surprising that at a busy airport like BOS that no other pilots noticed the a/c was coming in gear up and were able to say something directly or indirectly as a way of warning the crew.
The Embraer 145 QRH, which I have in front of me now, says that if such a message is received, the gear is to be cycled. If the message persists and the gear is to be selected down, then the abnormal landing gear extension procedure is to be used.
However, the drill does suggest in the preamble that that there would be a 'landing gear abnormal indication' indicated on the EICAS. There wasn't in this case.
Like many, I've always been told to trust what the gear indicator is showing - if you've got three greens, the gear is definitely down. It's changed my way of thinking for sure.
One last point, isn't it is surprising that at a busy airport like BOS that no other pilots noticed the a/c was coming in gear up and were able to say something directly or indirectly as a way of warning the crew.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Never flown the 145, so disregard if wished, but I paxed home the other week and didn't notice the thump of gear down either. On my 146 the primary notification for me of gear down is not the three lights but the three great thumps of the gear slotting into position.
My sympathies with this crew and thank goodness the fault was hard and repeatable, else you just know they'd have had a right grilling and firing squad treatment.
As to our barbies? Just keep checking the EICAS I guess?
My sympathies with this crew and thank goodness the fault was hard and repeatable, else you just know they'd have had a right grilling and firing squad treatment.
As to our barbies? Just keep checking the EICAS I guess?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U.K, I think.....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherflapoperator. Never flown the 145, so disregard if wished, but I paxed home the other week and didn't notice the thump of gear down either. On my 146 the primary notification for me of gear down is not the three lights but the three great thumps of the gear slotting into position.
My sympathies with this crew and thank goodness the fault was hard and repeatable, else you just know they'd have had a right grilling and firing squad treatment.
As to our barbies? Just keep checking the EICAS I guess?
My sympathies with this crew and thank goodness the fault was hard and repeatable, else you just know they'd have had a right grilling and firing squad treatment.
As to our barbies? Just keep checking the EICAS I guess?
Now, I'm not ashamed to admit this but, obviously depending on the circumstances, I may well have, prior to this incident, taken that at face value and also attempted to land.
Have been repeatedly told at initial and recurrent training that 3 greens on the EICAS means the gear is down and locked REGARDLESS of any other associated messages.
My QRH also states that EICAS would show gear fault (red or hatched or both) when LG/LVR DISAG message presented. 'Allegedly' this was not the case here.
G-LOST is spot on, on the day the other cue's could be missed.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orp Tolip: Why the emphasis on the word "allegedly", which seems to imply that you do not believe the crew's statements, when the fault has been reproduced on the ground?
In an initial test, the incident aircraft was placed on jacks and investigators duplicated the in-flight situation: Three green lights in the cockpit indicated the gear was down and locked but none of the gear extended.