Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jetblue LAX Landing: It Happened Before  
User currently offlineSabenaboy From Belgium, joined Feb 2001, 187 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3502 times:

Listen to this:

http://libsyn.com/media/joepodcaster/fwm85.mp3

You can hear the captain say:
...This is the same anomaly that occurred with 503...

Today I found pictures on another Aviation forum of a similar landing wit N503JB.
(Pretty spectacular pictures, they are)

The LAX incident was with N536JB.

Does anybody know when and where N503JB had the same problem?
Also strange that that first incident didn't make it to the media!

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Sorry to burst your bubble but this has been stated repeatedly in quite a few posts over the past few days.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

The reason this made the media and the other incident did not was that it was LA and it was daylight.


Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3386 times:

And it's not dangerous.

mrocktor


User currently offlineJavomd88 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

Hi guys,

Mexicana also had this problem long ago at MEX when the Airbus was new to them, I guess Airbus hasnt been able to solve this problem!

Seeya

JAVO737NG.


User currently offlineN323ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Ok i think we have to get one thing striaght here it is always dangerous landing an aircraft with any of the landing gear not working at 100%. Do I think the media took it way out of control.....YES but that is not shocking that is how they make money. I have had a couple of times when the panel has not indicated three green and everytime it has been a bulb out but you best believe that everytime we have had Rescue one standby. The JB pilot did a great job using his CRM skill and taking advise from MX and coming to his own conclusions, and he did a text book landing and maintained centerline perfectly. I guess my point here is this is an emergancy situation it is very dangerous

RYAN

RIACREW



RYAN SCAIFE
User currently offlineJeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 436 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

Quoting N323ER (Reply 5):
I guess my point here is this is an emergancy situation it is very dangerous

Not really. Riskier than a normal landing? No question. But "very dangerous"? That's overstating the case. Landing gear malfunctions, even in airline aircraft, rarely result in injuries, only spectacular TV footage. Even if the gear had collapsed on rollout, everyone would have walked away.

I hope you don't have the Riddle professor who claimed in the Seattle newspaper that Airbus gear rotates before it's stowed, "unlike Boeing". Keep in mind that you have to take what you hear on campus with a big grain of salt, no matter who you hear it from. Yes, you should keep your options open by having equipment standing by, but landing with abnormal gear isn't an imminent disaster by any stretch.


User currently offlineN323ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

Not sure of the teacher you are talking about graduated over 3 years ago. Also I think you will find any SOP will state that a gear problem is classed as an emergency I know in RIA SOP whether it be a gear light out or a case like this one we are dispatching Resuce calling the brace and going over the emg landing check list (thats for a 757) i am sure it would be the same for an A320 or maybe because it has happen so much on A320 it is part of a standard check list. Your comment on even if gear collapse everyone would walk away not sure how you could up with that. Has there been gear collapse and walk aways before...YES but on the other end of the scale lives have been lost in the same situation. The added stress of no nosewheel on the airframe could easliy cause the frame to buckle if the landing is not performed correctly as for JB the crew landed the a/c perfectly.

RYAN

RIAOPS



RYAN SCAIFE
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2837 times:

Quoting N323ER (Reply 5):
I guess my point here is this is an emergancy situation it is very dangerous



Quoting Jeff G (Reply 6):
Riskier than a normal landing? No question. But "very dangerous"? That's overstating the case. Landing gear malfunctions, even in airline aircraft, rarely result in injuries, only spectacular TV footage. Even if the gear had collapsed on rollout, everyone would have walked away.

Bingo.

Quoting N323ER (Reply 7):
Your comment on even if gear collapse everyone would walk away not sure how you could up with that. Has there been gear collapse and walk aways before...YES but on the other end of the scale lives have been lost in the same situation. The added stress of no nosewheel on the airframe could easliy cause the frame to buckle if the landing is not performed correctly as for JB the crew landed the a/c perfectly.

You have a basic false assumption, stated clearly in the last phrase. Of course if the landing is not performed correctly, the situation can be dangerous. That goes for any landing, failure or not.

Our point is that this failure does not add significant risk to the occupants, and this is true. I sincerely doubt you will find an accident with loss of life caused by this, or any similar, scenario.

What is dangerous is an unexpected gear collapse, of the main gear. This is an entirely different scenario.

mrocktor


User currently offlineN323ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Mrocktor understand where you are coming from but as I captian myself I know a main gear is a lot more serious than a nose. I just find it interesting the comments on this matter. A loss of center line on landing or a hard landing could change the outcome. Thats why at my company it is treated as an emg we don't just assume that a nose gear problem means that nothing is going to happen, or nose gear collapse is ok because we will all walk away not trying to argue just trying to understand comments posted.
In my opinion gear problems happen all the time and they end up not being a problem. Landing without nose wheel requires a faster landing speed for a smoother landing and stick hold positon to keep the nose wheel off the ground until the plane is as slow as poss (eg soft field landing like back in my private days). Faster means longer ground roll and maintaining nose up means higher chances of holding it to long and resulting in a rapid nose drop to the runway

Looking at these comments makes me think that people just sat there during the JB eng landing saying well this has happened before with no problem I know what the outcome is going to be. No lost of life and nothing serious. If this be the case then I am in shock

RYAN

RIACREW



RYAN SCAIFE
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting Jeff G (Reply 6):
Not really. Riskier than a normal landing? No question. But "very dangerous"? That's overstating the case.

Maybe. Maybe not. The plane wasn't designed to skid along on it's nosegear, and anything could happen. Yes, it's unlikely that the nose gear would collapse. It's also unlikely that a blown tire fragment would be ingested by an engine, or cause a main tire to burst, but you just don't know. Merely because nothing bad has happened so far, doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

Every time any kind of landing gear failure (even a blown tire) comes up in conversation to a pilot, they've said that it's dangerous, an emergency, and to be taken very seriously.

Quoting N323ER (Reply 9):
No lost of life and nothing serious. If this be the case then I am in shock

Agreed.

I'm really puzzled why many A.netters aren't more concerned about this A320 issue. At last count, it's happened 9 times. Even Airbus has managed to avoid this on their other aircraft, and Boeing appears to have never had it. I'm sensing a "no big deal" attitude about it.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineJeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 436 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Don't get me wrong, an abnormal gear landing requires a response of emergency equipment as a precaution. But a death-defying feat it's not. A planned emergency landing of this type just isn't that dangerous. A far more serious problem would be if the nose wheel were cocked at, say 20 degrees instead of 90 degrees. That would likely have pulled the aircraft off the side, but hopefully at a low enough speed to prevent serious injury. By comparison, even a main gear collapse is a less serious issue. Lots of smoke and noise, possibly followed by a (more-dangerous-than-the-landing) evacuation, but that's it. It's not imminent doom.

Quoting N323ER (Reply 9):
Looking at these comments makes me think that people just sat there during the JB eng landing saying well this has happened before with no problem I know what the outcome is going to be. No lost of life and nothing serious. If this be the case then I am in shock

Then prepare to be in shock. That's exactly what I was thinking while watching the coverage. The "experts" on TV were way over the top. Notice that the call-in airline pilots who commented all said that it wasn't all that big a deal. They (and I) were right. It was the media response itself that made it scary to the passengers, not the aircraft malfunction. Recording last thoughts, phoning in goodbyes to family, all unnecessary and all driven by hysterical media coverage.


User currently offlineN323ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2685 times:

Yeah the experts on TV were talking out of there rear end. But still i find it interesting that you could feel that way without considering the news report but these are just my thoughts

RYAN
RIACREW



RYAN SCAIFE
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting N323ER (Reply 9):
Looking at these comments makes me think that people just sat there during the JB eng landing saying well this has happened before with no problem I know what the outcome is going to be.

Not quite, actually I didn't watch at all. And not beacuse it has happened before (which I didn't know at the time) but because what I know about airplane design is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that nothing serious would happen.

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 10):
Maybe. Maybe not. The plane wasn't designed to skid along on it's nosegear, and anything could happen. Yes, it's unlikely that the nose gear would collapse. It's also unlikely that a blown tire fragment would be ingested by an engine, or cause a main tire to burst, but you just don't know. Merely because nothing bad has happened so far, doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

It was most likely designed with that situation in mind, and it was certainly designed to skid along with the nosegear collapsed.

It was also designed to consider debris ingestion (thus the procedure calling for engine shutdown and no use of reversers).

The fact is that usualy you do know. I would have been very surprised if something untoward happened.

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 10):
Every time any kind of landing gear failure (even a blown tire) comes up in conversation to a pilot, they've said that it's dangerous, an emergency, and to be taken very seriously.

That is the attitude the pilot must have. Complacency is dangerous, more dangerous than aircraft failure.

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 10):
I'm really puzzled why many A.netters aren't more concerned about this A320 issue. At last count, it's happened 9 times. Even Airbus has managed to avoid this on their other aircraft, and Boeing appears to have never had it. I'm sensing a "no big deal" attitude about it.

Because it does not pose a significant risk, which is what I'm trying to get through.

mrocktor


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 13):

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 10):
I'm really puzzled why many A.netters aren't more concerned about this A320 issue. At last count, it's happened 9 times. Even Airbus has managed to avoid this on their other aircraft, and Boeing appears to have never had it. I'm sensing a "no big deal" attitude about it.

Because it does not pose a significant risk, which is what I'm trying to get through.

Exactly. Plenty of aircraft have idosyncrasies. DC-9s have several times ingested ice sheets from the wings into the engines. 320s have lost engine cowlings. And so forth.

It just illustrates the fact that these machines are very complex, and not at all perfect. However, the redundancies built into the design of the planes, maintenance, and the training of pilots ensures such idosyncracies do not become a risk factor.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Concorde : It Happened Before To Same Aircraft posted Sat Sep 9 2000 17:07:40 by Gordonroxburgh
LAX Landing Lights posted Tue Jun 13 2006 10:26:00 by Kaitak744
Bad Landing, What Happened? posted Fri Apr 21 2006 17:25:18 by Henpol747
JetBlue Emergency Landing Today At JFK posted Thu Sep 22 2005 23:59:32 by Bobster2
Jetblue + LAX + After The Fact + TVS Were On posted Thu Sep 22 2005 07:45:56 by Deltaflyertoo
JetBlue Emergency Landing At STL! posted Mon Dec 27 2004 19:10:07 by Jetbluefan1
DL Chp.11, Its Monday, Has It Happened? posted Mon Oct 25 2004 18:52:14 by Airbus3801
It's Happened: Air India Leases Three 777-222ERs! posted Mon Oct 11 2004 02:44:59 by ConcordeBoy
Russian Bombings... If It Happened In The US posted Mon Aug 30 2004 09:33:27 by Artsyman
I Was At The Airport When It Happened! posted Thu Oct 3 2002 22:09:11 by AIR MALTA