LH A340 X Pond With U/C Down??
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huck,
The landing would be the same where ever it took place - so it may as well be nearer to destination. If there are no indications of damage to the aeroplane then another 6 hours won't make a lot of difference.
As long as the fuel is recalculated to allow for it (something the Hapag LLoyd chaps didn't do) then there is little or no reason not to go on. They would also, I presume, have had to dump fuel for an immediate landing - much better to burn it usefully to cross the Atlantic than throw it into the sea.
The landing would be the same where ever it took place - so it may as well be nearer to destination. If there are no indications of damage to the aeroplane then another 6 hours won't make a lot of difference.
As long as the fuel is recalculated to allow for it (something the Hapag LLoyd chaps didn't do) then there is little or no reason not to go on. They would also, I presume, have had to dump fuel for an immediate landing - much better to burn it usefully to cross the Atlantic than throw it into the sea.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pangea
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly enough,
The majority of ditching checklists call for gear up. Obviously you couldn't comply with this if the gear is forced down. I know it's a very, very unlikely scenario and probably one of the lesser worries in that scenario.
Just my two pence.
The majority of ditching checklists call for gear up. Obviously you couldn't comply with this if the gear is forced down. I know it's a very, very unlikely scenario and probably one of the lesser worries in that scenario.
Just my two pence.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are having problems getting the wheels up, then it is also possible you might have a problem getting them down again.
Fighting to get the wheels down at destination, or at an en-route fuel stop, and probably short of fuel, is not my idea of fun.
Fighting to get the wheels down at destination, or at an en-route fuel stop, and probably short of fuel, is not my idea of fun.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I guess, enough fuel was loaded in MAN to allow flight with gear down to MUC ?
.
3 hours 10 mins late arrival at MUC was a good result.
.
Sure this would of got more press had the gear got stuck up on the MAN MUC sector ?
.
3 hours 10 mins late arrival at MUC was a good result.
.
Sure this would of got more press had the gear got stuck up on the MAN MUC sector ?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: germany
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, nobody would cross the pond with the gear down. It took them some time to find out what´s wrong then got it up and did an inflight replaning due to the higher FF till the problem was solved. Thats all.
Thank you uplock, that is exactly what I was looking for.
That would be my supposition also. The question was aimed more at those individuals who saw nothing wrong with even thinking about doing so.
Guys, nobody would cross the pond with the gear down.
I am wondering if FAA would show the same interest as in the case of another large carrier that crossed an ocean with just three engines working despite LH having solved the problem before venturing into the ocean.
Rwy in Sight
Rwy in Sight
Quote from Enderby-Browne:
"It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe." Ridiculous comment. This was neither safe nor sensible, especially in an aircraft like the A340.
[Unquote]
Re the last phrase of your post, what feature(s) of the A340 would make it "especially" unsafe, Enderby-Browne?
That is not necessarily to imply disagreement with the first part of the sentence. Just curious,
Chris
"It's called customer service and it's perfectly safe." Ridiculous comment. This was neither safe nor sensible, especially in an aircraft like the A340.
[Unquote]
Re the last phrase of your post, what feature(s) of the A340 would make it "especially" unsafe, Enderby-Browne?
That is not necessarily to imply disagreement with the first part of the sentence. Just curious,
Chris
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what the gear problem was and how it was resolved? That may have some bearing on the question of whether it was safe or not to continue - and I'd be surprised if the crew hadn't discussed this over the blower with maintenance.
Is this sort of incident normally written up and published?
R
Is this sort of incident normally written up and published?
R
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: uk
Age: 72
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Customer service
Is that the same customer service Birdseed Airways used to fly a 747 LA-LHR with one engine failed just after departure.
The type of customer service I like is a cold beer packet of nuts and to stay alive to do it again another day!
If in doubt get on the ground to sort out issues it's not right to make some engineer many thousands of miles away make up the captains mind for him.
Bottom line GET ON THE GROUND to fix issues, pilots fly aircraft, engineers fix aircraft.
And yes you are right I am an engineer of 40+ years!!
The type of customer service I like is a cold beer packet of nuts and to stay alive to do it again another day!
If in doubt get on the ground to sort out issues it's not right to make some engineer many thousands of miles away make up the captains mind for him.
Bottom line GET ON THE GROUND to fix issues, pilots fly aircraft, engineers fix aircraft.
And yes you are right I am an engineer of 40+ years!!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oddjob1952
as you are an engineer may i respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting such tripe. We have a process that allows us to fault find and if possible rectify whilst airborne. If this process then requires a return to bae/diversion then believe me, this isn't a decision taken lightlly. Fact is returns cost mega bucks, howver if it is prudent to do so and the flight cannot be SAFELY carried out then this decision will be made!
I see nothing wrong in continuing the flight once they got the gear up...refuelling in MAN and then continuing to MUN. Lufthansa guys are generally excellent so give them a break as we don't know the facts. Noone in their right mind would croos the atlantic wheels down - the noise alone would drive you mad for 7 hours!
as you are an engineer may i respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting such tripe. We have a process that allows us to fault find and if possible rectify whilst airborne. If this process then requires a return to bae/diversion then believe me, this isn't a decision taken lightlly. Fact is returns cost mega bucks, howver if it is prudent to do so and the flight cannot be SAFELY carried out then this decision will be made!
I see nothing wrong in continuing the flight once they got the gear up...refuelling in MAN and then continuing to MUN. Lufthansa guys are generally excellent so give them a break as we don't know the facts. Noone in their right mind would croos the atlantic wheels down - the noise alone would drive you mad for 7 hours!
I agree with OddJob1952--they should have landed--at the nearset suitable destination [same sentiment with the BA 3/4 xing] AND NOT RETRACTED the GEAR!!!!
as other have said what if it wouldn't redeploy---or the hydaulic motors remained energized leading to an overheat or total failure ? the only thing thats hould be considered by FD is the approach plate back!!
and since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport--and I don't care if it's an airbus or a stearman---land!!!
if it not on the approved MEL or CDL then you land---get ferry a waiver if you will---but again Land!!
I guess the undercariage is just not that critical
PA
as other have said what if it wouldn't redeploy---or the hydaulic motors remained energized leading to an overheat or total failure ? the only thing thats hould be considered by FD is the approach plate back!!
and since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport--and I don't care if it's an airbus or a stearman---land!!!
if it not on the approved MEL or CDL then you land---get ferry a waiver if you will---but again Land!!
I guess the undercariage is just not that critical
PA
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: worldwide
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the system works, fine... go fly ahead
do not land...
you can check hydraulic temperatures, no problem.. ?
P.S: It says in checklist to retry the procedure..
no reason to land again...
By the way, I would not declare emergency either...
But a PAN
do you think it helps to land with 360 people in Bangor or Gander and then wait for 24h or more for a support team to fly in and then continue.. ?
I want to see my pax, when I tell them landing gear was o.k. now, but you can continue your travel onward tomorrow or the day after with me. Everybody who wants to leave, o.k. but without suitcase...
Definetely a bad decision.. to land enroute in this case, if the system is back to normal again !
Result shows: Correct decision !
Besides, better to land with empty tanks then with full tanks..
do not land...
you can check hydraulic temperatures, no problem.. ?
P.S: It says in checklist to retry the procedure..
no reason to land again...
By the way, I would not declare emergency either...
But a PAN
do you think it helps to land with 360 people in Bangor or Gander and then wait for 24h or more for a support team to fly in and then continue.. ?
I want to see my pax, when I tell them landing gear was o.k. now, but you can continue your travel onward tomorrow or the day after with me. Everybody who wants to leave, o.k. but without suitcase...
Definetely a bad decision.. to land enroute in this case, if the system is back to normal again !
Result shows: Correct decision !
Besides, better to land with empty tanks then with full tanks..
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA:
"since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport."
You have missed the point - they did the "Cannot Raise the Gear" procedure and it came up. Why would they then land at the nearest suitable?
"if it not on the approved MEL or CDL then you land---get ferry a waiver if you will---but again Land!!"
Once again you don't understand - the MEL (not sure what a CDL is but it's probably the same thing) is used on the ground to determine dispatch capability. The only time(s) you might have it out in flight would be to determine the ability to dispatch from a down-line station, or to comply with procedures specific to dispatch with an inoperative item. In flight irregularities are dealt with using emergency/abnormal drills and checklists.
"since they were subject to the FARs at the time they definitely should have landed as we make no distiction as to the nature or inconvience of landing with a failure---- only that you are to land at the nearest suitable airport."
You have missed the point - they did the "Cannot Raise the Gear" procedure and it came up. Why would they then land at the nearest suitable?
"if it not on the approved MEL or CDL then you land---get ferry a waiver if you will---but again Land!!"
Once again you don't understand - the MEL (not sure what a CDL is but it's probably the same thing) is used on the ground to determine dispatch capability. The only time(s) you might have it out in flight would be to determine the ability to dispatch from a down-line station, or to comply with procedures specific to dispatch with an inoperative item. In flight irregularities are dealt with using emergency/abnormal drills and checklists.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA
you have in one single post managed to miss the whole point of why we carry a QRH. the MEL/CDL is pre-dispatch. We might consult it after the QRH drill has been carried out but only for extra information and definately not as the primary document.
As for FAR rules - i think you will find that every pilot will act in accordance with their company SOPS 99% of the time.
Again, as a pilot my preduedure would have been
1. consult QRH
2. if prob rectified - continue as planned.
3. if prob not rectified - return
pretty simple really!
you have in one single post managed to miss the whole point of why we carry a QRH. the MEL/CDL is pre-dispatch. We might consult it after the QRH drill has been carried out but only for extra information and definately not as the primary document.
As for FAR rules - i think you will find that every pilot will act in accordance with their company SOPS 99% of the time.
Again, as a pilot my preduedure would have been
1. consult QRH
2. if prob rectified - continue as planned.
3. if prob not rectified - return
pretty simple really!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to find out what caused the initial problem. Having had u/c problems in a sim session and on the line, I would hazard a guess at either nosegear oleo failure to extend - this physically prevents you from moving the handle and clears after a period of time when it does actually extend.
Second was a failure to uplock which was a shortening link adjustment problem after a main gear service. That one was on a ferry and we took it back to base - about 2 hours - with the gear up, not locked on engineering advice.
I would have preferred the alternative of a nightstop in Zurich and out on the town with the SR Technics guys
Second was a failure to uplock which was a shortening link adjustment problem after a main gear service. That one was on a ferry and we took it back to base - about 2 hours - with the gear up, not locked on engineering advice.
I would have preferred the alternative of a nightstop in Zurich and out on the town with the SR Technics guys
3Greens:
Idle Thrust:
I'm willing to stand corrected and I do understand the signifigance o9f the MEL/CDL---- but----
I'm trying to say that a defective or inoperative item not on the MEL/CDL even post dispatch---negates the airworthiness specifications of the ship and as such should be landed when practical---because that means there's no certification for the unserviceability of that particular item---in the case of gear retraction---I wouldn't continue the flight not because I couldn't get the gear up but more out of fear I couldn't get it back down--
-I wouldn't try to diagnose the problem---i let the mechanics deal with that on the ground While I sip cold coffee---because if there were a crash/incident I don't think the authorities would really care--they'd just cite you on reckless and careless operation
now if the QRH gives a procedure as has been alluded If it didn't work the very first time I'd call it quits simple--my gut feelings just wouldn't let me continue in that scenario---fighting to get the gear up---might mean that you'd have to fight to get it down---I don't want to say I hope the gear will drop when we get down---I just read an article about HOPE in aviation---it means Horrendous Outcomes Per Emotions---that flight had to much of a hope elememt for me
Idle Thrust:
I'm willing to stand corrected and I do understand the signifigance o9f the MEL/CDL---- but----
I'm trying to say that a defective or inoperative item not on the MEL/CDL even post dispatch---negates the airworthiness specifications of the ship and as such should be landed when practical---because that means there's no certification for the unserviceability of that particular item---in the case of gear retraction---I wouldn't continue the flight not because I couldn't get the gear up but more out of fear I couldn't get it back down
---I wouldn't try to diagnose the problem---i let the mechanics deal with that on the ground While I sip cold coffee---because if there were a crash/incident I don't think the authorities would really care--they'd just cite you on reckless and careless operation
now if the QRH gives a procedure as has been alluded If it didn't work the very first time I'd call it quits simple--my gut feelings just wouldn't let me continue in that scenario---fighting to get the gear up---might mean that you'd have to fight to get it down---I don't want to say I hope the gear will drop when we get down---I just read an article about HOPE in aviation---it means Horrendous Outcomes Per Emotions---that flight had to much of a hope elememt for me