There are 2 LGCIU’s in the Airbus A340 (Land Gear Comp 1+2) controlling the gear, which alternates and swaps over when the gear handle is selected down, if I remember.

In my previous life, one of the A340’s got airborne on an 11 hour flight to base and had a gear problem after lift off. Before landing 11 hours later the LGCIU swapped over and worked fine for the gear down and subsequent landing. The crew wrote it up in the tech log.

The engineering team of course decided to swap the LGCIU’s (not thingking they are returning to the original problem) around again, with the remark please report further. Of course they have now re racked the faulty LGCIU back into operation.

The next crew takes the aircraft back on another 11 hour flight and couldn’t get the gear up after take-off. The captain decided not to dump fuel and not to return for landing, but rather go into the A&E bay and find and re-rack the LGCIU’s and CONTINUE.

Just incredible!

Well the gear retracted and then the crew flew for the next 11 hours wondering if the gear would come down.

I do believe the authorities were awaiting their arrival in Europe, to speak to the captain and hear his interesting explanation of his time in the A&E bay

What?! Are you serious with that? They are going down to swap Gear Computers while in flight? Ohhh...

In our company it's an absolutely "No Go" for the Flightcrew to enter the A&E bay not to mention to swap or re-rack any computers or to reset CBs especially while they are in flight ... The only thing they are allowed to do is to operate the Reset Breakers which are on the Overhead Panel after instruction from the Maintenance Control Center.

Greetings,
Michael

Now THAT is Windows Syndrome. I've seen it a lot on Pprune - people get used to fixing their home computers by swapping stuff around. Worse, they do some programming and think they know about industrial computing. Worst of all, they're actually commercial software developers, know how that ratbag of chips called a PC operates (yes, you'll find the ghost of the original IBM design in every Intel-based box, no matter how multicore and gigahertzy it is), and think they know ALL about industrial computing.

Which is odd. Even those who know enough about plumbing to put in a new shower wouldn't think of mussing with the hydraulics - but there's something about IT that makes everyone who's seen a command line an instant expert.

Butanyway. Has anyone found out what actually happened during the incident mentioned in the original post?

R

I agree with OddJob1952 - pilots fly aircraft, engineers fix aircraft.

But I would alter the statement slightly as 'pilots fly SERVICEABLE aircraft, and engineers should keep them that way'!

At LH they did not go into the A&E and did not swap the LGCIU.

Got that from a very reliable source from the fleet there...

Anyway the CM1 would have to answer a lot of questions, if he would have done that in flight.

:-)

We had a crew once that lost the box that ran the F/O's screens.

Instead of putting him on the AUX one (as called for by the QRH) they put him on the Captain's box.

Then whatever killed the F/O's box killed the Captain's box.

One cannot underestimate the ****storm created by troubleshooting maintenance in flight. The Tristar in the Everglades comes to mind.....

Huh? :confused:
Landing gear, hydraulic motors? :confused:

Does the A340-600 not use hydraulic jacks (actuators) like all the others?

CDL is the Configuration Deviation List by the way. It lists those items that are allowed to be missing for dispatch. EG Flap fairing. Out of interest what is it called in Canada? :ok:

The LH crew of this a/c also had the advantage of being able to see what the L/Gear was physically doing by using the ground manouvering (taxi) cameras installed. :ok:

Are the cameras a standard fit Turin?

Not sure if it's a standard fit but it was fitted to this one as the skipper told me he'd used it to check the state of the landing gear when they had the problem.

yes, motor, like an electric motor, except, it's not electric it's hydraulic:} what if you can't turn off the motor/actuator whatever it's called?

A motor in engineering is any mechanical device that converts a form of energy into rotational motion providing a torque moment---there are pneumatic/hydraulic/electric and internal/external combustion--motors

Same thing.

Report by Captain:

"...unusual event...uncertain of ramifications...elected as PIC (not company Chairman)...to assess and land at a suitable airport...drills carried out...safe landing accomplished... passengers disembarked...aircraft, passengers and crew all safe and in one piece"
Regards Captain XXXXXXXXXXX

Company: "yes but WE preferred if you had continued"

Captain: "fine but me, myself, the passengers (please read "lawsuit" instead of passengers, please do!) the crew and your precious f**king aircraft are here,now, with the actions taken.
Had we continued???

Company: "yes....but even still WE preferred you to continue!"

Captain: "would you still maintain that attitude had YOU been aboard and we'd appraised you of the situation??"

Company: ..................after some consideration: "actually forgot to mention what a great effort you made for all involved, thank-you, cheerio-o!"
Pan to grey suited invidual scurrying away.

Cheers
Galdian

Sorry, 14CFR129 offers no such restriction with regard to MEL/CDL items, as BA clearly found out when one of their B744's continued to destination on three engines.
The FAA has no say in the matter, same with the above referenced BA flight.
Those who pound their chests, Tarzan-style, and insist that their countries regulations apply to others (regardless of aircraft nationality/registration) clearly have little practical information on which to base their incorrect assessments.

Post dispatch?
Totally and completely wrong.

Unserviceable items after departure are handled on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Commander.
Yes, one can (and should) consult the MEL/CDL for additional operational information, however, once the aircraft is airbourne, MEL/CDL items have no legal binding effect, should a defect be found after departure.....unless other operational restrictions are located in the limitations section of the AFM.

So, does this then allow an aircraft, the landing gear of which, fails to retract, to continue the flight to destination?
In many cases, yes, provided the enroute capabilities are sufficient, and extra fuel is available, either for a non-stop flight or with a technical stop.
However, if a technical stop is required, the MEL/CDL then becomes operative once again.

Just guess the guys performed a thorough check and Xchecked via ACARS w HQ, additionally the information of the taxi cam would be quite precise, having that problem again on the MAN-MUC leg could have been antecipated, by putting enough fuel (just for that precise case), all in all a 3.5 hr delay was a great performance, considering on a JFK dep it could happen even on a flight without any unusual circumstance...
So I guess at decision was safe to continue, else stop in IAD. :ok:
I guess those surprised with the go-no-go procedures aren't flying for any comercial airline...
Safety comes first, when economic considerations allow!
PS: consider: A340-600 is longer than a A380, not a handy A/C in many places to divert...

I think there needs to be a reality check about airmanship. If they managed to get gear up after troubleshooting with passengers aboard then what were the odds the gear would actually lower again ?

Lufthansa wishes to welcome passengers to test flight LH429.

Doesn't anyone spot the problem ?

Excellent, I would expect.
The problem with many new(er) pilots is they have a seemingly poor knowledge of aircraft systems, oftentimes enforced by uninformed airline training departments, and also some manufacturers, who think that many pilots can't think for themselves...and clearly many uninformed ones can not.

Lets look back in time for a rational similar scenario.
Aircraft type, B707-320.
Airline concerned, PanAmerican.

PanAmerican completed many long overwater sectors, some of which originated from rather remote Pacific islands.
Ten plus hour sectors.
On occasion, when the landing gear was attempted to be selected up, it was found that the gear handle was 'locked' down.
This was usually because one of the main gear trucks was not completely level.
Pan Am ordered all their B707-320's with the hydraulic interconnect system to be able to be used in flight.
In this way, the landing gear could be retracted very slowly, using the AC electric pumps, while rails inside the wheel bays would slowly level trucks that were not aligned properly.
Once the landing gear was completely retracted and gear doors closed, interconnect off...back to normal.
This procedure was strictly at the descrition of the Commander.

Whom is to say that LH does not have an alternate landing gear procedure that others, who do not fly for LH, would have absolutely no knowledge of?

Just as many comments were critical of BA flying with one engine inop after departure from LAX when in actual fact the Commander concerned thought it was entirely practical, and BA management agreed...it is perhaps better for many pilots (and SLF) to look just past their own very slightly limited knowledge.:}

411A, I enjoy reading your post a good deal but I still must respectfully disagree


in a technical sense of course you are correct--as per the words of 14CFR129, but as you also are aware the FAA can twist their own words as they please--and as the government has new found conservatism when it it come to second guessing ANY pilots decision as long as they can get the blame for a mishap placed upon s/he---but there are then there are advisory circulars [such as the W/B handbook---in describing the extent and purpose of the MEL it explicitly say that airworthiness is invalided by NON-MEL items, being inoperative yet does not differentiate the air from the ground--so as the actual MEL item serves as a limitation that has to be complied with pre-dispatch as per 129.14. b p1-7---landing gear is rarely a MEL item--and therefore there's nothing to consult---

As per QRH--- that is also for guidance--if a particular procedure is not working--it is up to the commander's discretion---now my systems knowledge on the types I've flown/fly is up to ATP standards--but I'm NOT qualified nor do I possess the training or material to deal with a unknown or recalcitrant or difficult to rectify mechanical defect--

---as I said ---such a procedure--- if written would have to work the very first time---unless there is a specific STC such as in your example--so in the interest of conservatism --MY decision would have been to land as MY butt on the line---because I don't like unknowns---a conservative decision can never be faulted whereas if an incident were to occur--even if you were exercising command discretion ----they [FAA etc] can always and will always fault you for taking the less conservative position---no matter what!!!

as far as the BA 3/4 well I'm not ready to re-initiate that debate:\--that my opinion--I'm not a lawyer--but the company -for me is on the ground an therefore nearly useless in the air


PA





§