UA landing at Newark
 

Plane Makes Emergency Landing at Newark Airport
NEW YORK (1010 WINS) -- A plane made a rough landing at Newark Liberty Airport after experiencing landing gear problems.

United Airlines flight 634, which was coming in from Chicago, made the emergency landing after the pilot reported the problem.

The plane safely landed around 9:30 a.m., and was met by emergency vehicles.

The crew and passengers were safely removed from the plane.

No injuries were reported and no word as to what the exact issue with the landing gear was.








Then there's this from The News Bizarre

United Airline 634 Emergency Landing at Newark International

United flight 634 has made an emergency landing at Newark International airport in New Jersey, reports MSNBC.

The United Airlines Flight 634 landed at Newark successfully after their right rear landing gear failed to deploy. All pasangers and crew are said to be okay.

United Flight 634 crash landed at 9:30am local time, reports said.

The United Airlines Flihgt 634 is now sitting on the Newark International tarmac. All flights out of Newark are temporarily suspended reports said, due to the emeargency landing of Flight 634.

The United Airlines aircraft was an Airbus and was travelling from Chicago to Newark with 53 passengers on board.






So depending on where you get your news, it was either a "rough landing" or a "crash landing."

United Pilots are smart...got away with a landing...and screwed up CAL's hub operation!

Still blocking one of the runways as of 2 hours ago. Landing are coming in on the cross runway - which is a bit of a shock as a PAX if you're not expecting it :)

Nose wheel in the air? The forward position of the engines obviously has it's drawbacks. I don't think I would like to slide down that slide, that's for sure.

Had this been an AA bird, crew would be immediately found at fault. At least around these here parts.





coat, hat, galoshes...

Pictures are already up!
Photos: Airbus A319-131 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Airbus A319-131 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

RAT deployed...hydraulic problems or SOP for this kind of issue?

Also, can't help but notice from the pics how close the aircraft is to the centerline, well done chaps! :D

United? I thought it was just guitars.:E

I think the RAT comes out automatically when electrical power is cut which should be part of the gear up landing procedure.

It's been awhile, but I think the RAT will deploy automatically if AC 1 and AC 2 are lost above 90kts with the nose wheel off the ground, or it could have been deployed manually as part of some procedure or SAMC request.

At least the nosewheel assemby..
 

...is pointed more or less fore and aft.... Not always the case with 'Buses! :rolleyes:

Nice on centerline, good job!

Post 11's second picture is very interesting. Normal sequencing for the gear would be handle to down, MLG doors sequence open, main gear unlocks and gravity assisted falls to the 'locked position' (MLG actuator can push it so that the sidebrace goes overcenter), then the MLG doors are finally sequenced closed. Appears here that the RMLG door did not open all the way prior to the gear becoming unlocked (or the gear never reached the fully up and locked position when retracted the last time) and hung on the door. Because the gear did not extend all the way, the doors were not sequenced closed again (both remained open).

Surprises me that the door would be strong enough to hold the weight of the gear + the actuator force. I would assume that the crew attempted at least one re-sequencing.

OK, I'm not a pilot, but even I know that the failure of the landing gear to deploy is in no way the fault of the flight crew. :ugh:

real captain speaking:
 

The last few posts have given me a huge grin.

So...

1. The plane is probably not a ''write off"...

2. The crew might not have entered a holding pattern to do their emergency check lists (we call them non routine or non normal) but they sure tried to get the geat down using normal and alternate methods

3. Embry Riddle is not the only way to learn to fly (I smiled the heck out of that one)

4. The landing gear doors on my favorite airliner support the gear while in normal flight...

5. Someone said that the nose of this plane looked like the DC6...well I think most Boeings (this was an airbus of course) look like an F7 diesel Locomotive

6. There are quite a few real pilots (atp etc) on this forum.

7. If I were flying to the New York area, I wouldn't go to Newark. (which some of us call "Sewark" as in sewer)


and finally...someone who doesn't NEED TO LEARN what an airline pilot does/is...probably needs to learn more than anyone else.


(ps...the crew could be at fault if they didn't do a proper walk around preflight inspection and missed an obvious problem...I'm sure they did do a proper walkaround...there is a remote possibility that some slush from Chicago was thrown into an unusual spot and froze up at altitude and didn't melt...thus jamming the gear...but one incident in the past had a mechanic place a wheel chock into a spot on a 737 and it jammed the gear...usair/piedmont...they showed that one on tv too)

4. The landing gear doors on my favorite airliner support the gear while in normal flight...

B767?? he might actually be correct:confused:

DC-10/MD-11 main gears also have no uplocks. Door uplock is how they're held up.

And BAC1-11 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah:)

Someone flying a C-172 is a real Captain as well. Awe me with facts and not titles.

Thanks to the mods for cleaning this thread up. The fact that my posting went with the clean-up is just fine with me, as I was only responding to the inaccuracies that were posted.

This was posted today by aviation-safety.net:

West Coast
 

I made statements...including the one about gear doors supporting the landing gear and a number of folks agreed (though they didn't mention my favorite airliner...but they named some good ones)


tell me about your background.

mine (atpmelcfiimei 737 type)

soloed in 1975 at a WEST COAST airport.

and I've flown with sully.

now, you speak up.

A small collection of pictures:

United Airlines plane makes emergency landing at Newark airport

Nice save!

...anyone know if they dumped fuel first?

Dumped Fuel? I doubt it. Unless the weather was really bad there would be very little fuel to dump when they got to their destination. They probably had just enough on board to run through the Emergency Checklist before they had to start thinking about some place to put it down. Can a A320 even dump fuel?

(I know from experience..... I had a nose gear problem once in an F28. Ran the checklist, did a tower fly-by and landed on fumes.)

I have not flown with Sully. I didn't know that was a prerequisite. I haven't landed the space shuttle either.

Former Marine, Helo's. Current 121 pilot. CRJ, B-737 types, a Scorpio and I like long walks on the beach.

Do we need to measure willies as well?

Really, on an anonymous BB? Well then prognosticate away. Perhaps we can do away with the NTSB and replace it with pprune.

Wait till all the facts come out.

west coast...a helo pilot...that says it so very well.

you asked for facts...didn't specifiy which ones.

and the a320, to the other guy, doesn't dump fuel.

very few narrowbody planes do...its the really long range stuff that can dump...even some early 767's can't dump fuel (option for the airlines). A few air canada DC9's could dump fuel, but modern narrowbodies don't (the ones in common use today)

Indeed A319 does NOT dump fuel and when you choose to use the Gravity L/G Extension the doors automatically drop and stay there, it has nothing to do with supporting or not the landing gear. Also the RAT would be out because of the same checklist.

I believe the only dumping here was in the pants of a few of the pax as they looked down that slide!:bored:

speaking of slides
 

it is often said that the evacuation will probably end up hurting more people than anything else.

wondering, why, an airport as well equippped as newark, the captain elected to use the slides.

portable stairs should have been the first choice in a non time critical situation...plenty of CFR should have prevented any chance of fire.

If I had just landed a plane and dragged an engine along the tarmac my last thought would be to wait for the stairs to pitch up - An A320 is not designed to dump fuel but if you rupture a line or a tank then watch it gush out - who in their right mind would NOT blow the slides?

I'm sure every pilot when faced with such a scenario thinks 'I dont care if I get through this in one piece, I just hope everyone on pprune thinks I did the right thing....'

Just a question regarding poss div, why not use KSWF ? Only 60 miles from the city, and would alleviate disrupting a high traffic destination !

Am I just thinking logically or being a numpty ?

where is 411a today
 

surprised he hasn't suggested hanging the FO by his/her suspenders out the door midflight and bashing the gear door down so problem resolved. Sure he or Steven Seagal has done this before......

or does this idea belong on the real vs playstation FO thread...?

:)

G

best to risk an injury or 2 than to sit and wait for steps and a fire starts...

slides vs. stairs
 

of course the danger of fire is a concern...but the plane didn't catch on fire did it?

CFR was right there

the slides could have been used if things hadn't gone so well.

The builders of good planes conceive of landing ''gear up'' and protect certain areas for this eventuality.

Having trained for this and other problems, I would have asked the fire chief to monitor the possibility of fire and advise me minute by minute via radio or BULL HORN of fire and to spray area as a precaution.

I've seen too many people do things automatically and not with real thought. Certainly if the fire chief said: fuel leak, fire likely...fuel observed leaking...that might be a different story. also, it is hopeful that the fuel valves were properly closed at the right time. wing and engine valves.

AS to using SWF...it is a good idea...but unlikely that there is major maintenance used by United at that otherwise fine airport.

Sorry, protectthehornet, but when it comes to fires and evacuations, seconds save lives. I am not prepared to waste them on your "what if" scenarios when I'm in an airplane that has sustained significant damage to the structures immediately below and adjacent to the fuel tanks.

PTH Seriously. I can't believe you're position. Either you know something the rest of us don't, or you are winding us up. You will protect a Hornet, but subject your passengers to an experiment while waiting for ignition?

bear

Bear
I'm with you. I'm only helo guy though. Albeit with about 10K of fixed wing time.

I wouldn't ask anyone not there, especially one who proffers opinions about just about every mishap about the facts of this incident. When the NTSB arrives at it's findings, then I might seek out the facts. If I wanted opinion I'd ask you.

Bear
 

at our airline, we train to really evaluate things...quickly of course...but the plane didn't catch on fire did it?

a precautionary blast of foam on the good gear (those brakes were probably hot) and a blast of foam around the contact points near the engine and or wing tip might have been in order.

I guess you haven't flown to florida much with dozens of older folks...send someone down a slide at age 20 isn't the same at age 80.

And tiger...there wouldn't be any wait for stairs...I would have ordered them there, right behind the fire trucks, and they would have been in position prior to the FAF for my approach.

And remember boys and girls, those slides don't compensate for a plane that is on its side with gear retracted.

I stand by what I've said> I don't think I would have evacuated...I would have arranged things like I mentioned above.

and again...the plane didn't catch fire did it?

Blindly evacuating isn't always the right thing to do...neither is waiting around while those around you are burning up.

and my moniker: protect the hornet

refers to a line from a famous film: "The Purple Heart".

either way...let us hope we never have anything but boring flights