RickYHM From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 140 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7308 times:
Quote: Emergency landing and fire at Trudeau Airport YUL
2007-09-24 08:14:43 WWW.940MONTREAL.COM
An Air Canada jet leaving for Calgary declared a mechanical emergency and made a forced landing a Trudeau Airport last night. The landing gear of the Airbus A320 caught fire but Airport firefighters were quick to extinguish the flames. 121 passengers, 5 crew members were safely evacuated, and no one was injured. An investigation is underway.
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7209 times:
CuriousFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 653 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7162 times:
Yes please, nothing happpened, change the headline!
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3031 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6749 times:
Greenair727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 441 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6451 times:
Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies or such problems they make the news more frequently. Does anyone have any statstics that compare the rate of landing gear issues by equipment type?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6337 times:
Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7): Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies or such problems they make the news more frequently. Does anyone have any statstics that compare the rate of landing gear issues by equipment type?
It's physically impossible for a Boeing nosegear to fail that way, so that automatically eliminates a big chunk of the fleet. The tradeoff is that Boeing nosegear can't swivel as far.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6288 times:
Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7): Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies
The A320 is not a heavy
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
BA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 277 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6169 times:
Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7): Either the A320 has more landing gear problems
You're making an assumption that this was a landing gear problem, that hasn't been established yet!
A landing gear fire like this (if it was a fire!) could well be caused by landing back overweight and at high speed and the brakes then overheating. All that the press release says is that it returned with a mechanical failure - could have been an engine, or several other things!
Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7): (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off)
This was a well publicised (& televised) event. I can recall an event some years ago, where a 737 landed in the US with the starboard main gear retracted (also televised) Landing gear related incidents are extremely rare on all certified transport a/c, and are usually caused by external events, such as overweight landings, rather than mechanical issues.
I flew A319/320s for 4 years, and had a couple of BSCU problems (Brakes & Steering Control Unit). The gear and steering on the A320 are more electronically controlled than in the 737. Apart from that, I had no problems with the ldg gear/brakes or steering nor my confidence in them!
StarCityFlyr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5481 times:
Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 9): This was a well publicised (& televised) event. I can recall an event some years ago, where a 737 landed in the US with the starboard main gear retracted (also televised) Landing gear related incidents are extremely rare on all certified transport a/c, and are usually caused by external events, such as overweight landings, rather than mechanical issues.
This was a US Airways 737 that landed in GSO because a wheel chuck was stuck in the landing gear. The plane made a safe albeit bumpy landing without injury to passengers. Made for great TV footage though and clearly demonstrated the outstanding training that pilots and co-pilots receive in handling emergency situations.
A5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4137 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7): Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7):
Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies or such problems they make the news more frequently. Does anyone have any statstics that compare the rate of landing gear issues by equipment type?
It's physically impossible for a Boeing nosegear to fail that way, so that automatically eliminates a big chunk of the fleet. The tradeoff is that Boeing nosegear can't swivel as far.
OTOPS From Canada, joined May 2007, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3841 times:
Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 5): Because in general people will think it was a cabin/flight deck/cargo fire first, not something external like the landing gear.
Just because you jumped to conclusions doesn't make it untrue.
Airbus-A name that manages to make aviation sound uncool.
Jetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2984 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 5): Because in general people will think it was a cabin/flight deck/cargo fire first, not something external like the landing gear.
What "general public"? Not this general public.
I think some of you guys worry too much about nothing. Let the guy call his post whatever he likes.
Goodness.
Worked for too many airlines to list. Banktupcy after bankruptcy after bankruptcy.
Jerald01 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 161 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Hey, the original post called it as it was reported... and emergency landing and a fire that was extinguished. What's wrong with the title of the thread saying what was originally reported?
Also, a lot of folks on this net have quite a "ho-hum" attitude about "emergency" calls such as this... mostly folks who have been around the tarmac a couple of times and have pretty much "seen it all". Not all of us have had the same experiences and so what may seem like an everyday thing to some really is perceived as an "emergency" to others. Let each have their own opinion...
"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15 Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting ATHYEG333 (Reply 17): Two incidents for AC in YUL and YYZ within a couple of days!
Not a good week for them!
It happens, but nobody got hurt, nobody ran to the media with horror stories so people couldn't have been that scared, and both birds will fly after some maintenance. No big deal really.
ATHYEG333 From Greece, joined Jun 2007, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
Quoting Sebring (Reply 18): It happens, but nobody got hurt, nobody ran to the media with horror stories so people couldn't have been that scared, and both birds will fly after some maintenance. No big deal really.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1864 times:
Quoting A5XX (Reply 11): It's physically impossible for a Boeing nosegear to fail that way, so that automatically eliminates a big chunk of the fleet. The tradeoff is that Boeing nosegear can't swivel as far.
The original post I was replying to was that the nosegear turned 90 degrees. You can see clearly that the nosegear in the picture you posted is not turned 90 degrees. The nosegear linkage on a Boeing can't turn 90 degrees without physically breaking two separate hydraulic actuators.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 140 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2498 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 277 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jun 2007, 103 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6016 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
