JetBlue Flight 292 Emergency Landing

[CalabashCorolla]

Apparently JetBlue flight 292 (an Airbus 320) has landing gear problems, having taken off from Burbank some time ago. They are trying to make an emergency landing at LAX, scheduled for 8:25 EDT.

I only mention this because the whole story is being carried live on TV! Seems as if it can be carried live on TV in LA, it will be...car chases, mudslides, plane landings, you name it.

I really really hope that everything goes well and they land safely...keep primary digits crossed :(

[Andromeda321]

I was flipping through channels and found the news channels are all broadcasting it. I can't even begin to explain what I find wrong with them waiting to see a plane potentially crash...

[CalabashCorolla]

A few posters over on airliners.net have mentioned something about some of the networks talking with actual passengers on the flight...if so, I would assume via cell phone and primarily because the passengers were watching seat-back DirecTV and phoned into whatever news network they were watching...

It's awful enough to see the situation unfolding on TV, but I can't even begin to imagine how terrible it would be to watch video coverage of your disabled flight from your on-board TV...nor can I imagine who in the world agreed to put the passengers on the air, if they did. Are ratings really that important to them?

Again, here's hoping that everyone lands safely...

[jt-3d]

Oh dear. I guess police chases got boring.

[Gillianren]

here's what I want to know--so it took off at Burbank? why an emergency landing at LAX? the airports aren't that far apart--less than an hour by car, and you've got to go through downtown LA. I'm sure there's a reason; I just don't know what it is. (probably more accustomed to emergencies at LAX, which is also by far the bigger airport.) but put it this way--it doesn't substantially matter which airport I use to visit my mother; neither's more than about a forty-five minute drive unless it's rush hour.

[CalabashCorolla]

here's what I want to know--so it took off at Burbank? why an emergency landing at LAX? the airports aren't that far apart--less than an hour by car, and you've got to go through downtown LA. I'm sure there's a reason; I just don't know what it is. (probably more accustomed to emergencies at LAX, which is also by far the bigger airport.) but put it this way--it doesn't substantially matter which airport I use to visit my mother; neither's more than about a forty-five minute drive unless it's rush hour.

LAX has longer runways than both Burbank and Long Beach, where they tried to land earlier. You're right in that they are more prepared there - likely they have more emergency equipment on-site than other, smaller airports. I understand that they have the option of diverting to Edwards AFB in the desert near Lancaster (over the mountains, just beyond LA), which has the longest potential runway of all, the dry lake bed where they have landed the shuttle.

I think they didn't want to divert to another, more distant city (like Phoenix, for example) in case there were other, unknown problems with the plane besides the nose gear. There's a whole lotta nothing between LA and other major cities (in terms of viable airports, I mean...unless they wanted to make a soft landing in a raisin field in the Central Valley).

[jt-3d]

Well here goes nothing. I wish these 'experts' would shut up. Well done, flyboys. It's miller time.

[Gemini]

They made it, parked on the runway now!

[Superluminal]

I'll bet a lot of newscasters are disappointed.

[Ara Pacis]

The way the wheels got ground down by the landing it reminded me of how two 3D solids look when intersecting on a computer.

[weatherc]

:clap:

Kudos to the pilot of that plane! I've been aboard planes where the landing gear were functional that were bumpier than that. The front landing gear ended up exactly on the center line of the runway when the plane stopped!

[Metricyard]

I'm amazed that the landing gear could ake that kind of force. That's a pat on the back for the engineers who designed that landing gear. Of course he/she'll probably be fired for designing the landing gear.

[Nicolas]

Uhm, any information/link as to what happened, waht was wrong with the wheel, how they landed it etc please? :)

Edit: found it on CNN.com.

I just watched the video: amazing work!!

The total control during that landing, it was just perfect. Easy on the main gear while keeping the nose up, soaring only the nosegear over the runway (Holiday passengers seem to like the "i can't even feel it" complete soaring landings, though these aren't the safest ones as there is little pressure on the tires to keep it firmly on the runway and give it a good brake. Here they put the main gear firmly though VERY controlled on the runway, making sure the contact (and hence braking force) stays throughout the landing, while forcing the nosewheel to soar over the runway nonetheless.). Really going for a long way on the main gear (F-16 like landing, though without the high aoa to airbrake :)). Then putting the nosewheel down in such a soft and controlled way (at the right time, when there was still enough speed to avoid falling on the nose wheel), having a perfectly straight course. And the nosewheel itself: tires exploded (which is OK and normal in this situation), wheels got dented and ended up breaking more or less away, the nose gear itself got scraped off quite a bit, but it held on and let go very little (sharp) pieces as it seems! Even the runway seems to have suffered very little. Amazing piloting work, very good design (the wheel problem could have been due to design mistakes though, but also things like maintenance faults can be the cause) and a bit of luck. Perfect emergency landing!

The bit of luck was needed for things like the main gear getting stuck in the runway (between patches) and braking off anyway, or sudden sideskidding during the runout at a time where the speed was too low for the rudder to compensate. As the main landing forces and speed were properly dealt with by the main gear, I think that woul have resulted only in (a lot more) damage but no wounded. This one seems like "new nosegear on it, checking the surrounding construction where it is hung up to and up you go" :).

It must have been the smelliest landing ever however :D. "Let's burn some rubber!"

[kucharek]

Was it a good thing in bad luck that the wheel had blocked in a 90°-off position? In this position, you have not very much forces trying to get you to the sides. I guess, if it would have been blocked 10° or 20° to the left or right, the pilot would have had a harder time to keep it on the center line. Any estimates of the steering forces that are introduced by the wheel compared to those you can get from the rudder and the engines? I guess, in such a situation, one pilot takes care of the rudders and the other stands ready to give some control by the engines.
Congrats to the pilots. It was a very smooth landing - except for the fireworks.
Will be interesting to know what happened that made the wheel block.

[Candy]

To Nicolas! :)

[EvilBob]

My piloting experience is limited to a Cessna 152, but the mainwheel brakes on an aircraft are operated separately, allowing the pilot to use differing pressure on each side to steer the aircraft down the runway - below a certain speed the rudder becomes useless, anyway. But I'd have to agree that having the nosewheel locked at 90 degrees would have to be easier to control than any other angle. Other than 0, of course...

[Candy]

Oh God, why am I reminded of Souix City for some reason?

[Enzp]

When I fly I make a point of offering a "thank you" through the cockpit door on my way out, and a compliment if it was a particularly smooth landing. This guy I would have bought lunch for. My hat is off to him/them.

I wonder if there was the "b'bye" chorus on the way out?

[Candy]

146 people on board had access to their news!

[Candy]

I did not know this, but each seat is equiped with a TV.

[Maksutov]

I'm amazed that the landing gear could ake that kind of force. That's a pat on the back for the engineers who designed that landing gear. Of course he/she'll probably be fired for designing the landing gear.If the landing gear had been manufactured in accordance with Six Sigma and/or Lean, it would have collapsed the second it experienced any unusual stresses that weren't part of the conventional landing profile specification. Any safety factors to account such out-of-spec performance issues would have been eliminated by the Black Belts and bean counters during the design phase in order to minimize cost and maximize profits.

If properly investigated, I'm sure it'll be a pink slip for the engineer(s) who wasted such valuable resources and potentially had a negative effect on company profits.

Meanwhile, congrats to the crew for a successful landing, the flight controllers who brought them in safely to the best runway available for this situation, and the emergency response personnel who were ready just in case. :clap:

[Candy]

Apparently, Maksutov is not alone in the congrats! This was simply amazing what the pilots were able to do in landing this beast! I'm near tears.

[jumbo]

Nice landing
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L/

Oh God, why am I reminded of Souix City for some reason?
This was serious but Sioux city was in a different league altogether though. It is unbelievable anyone got out alive from that flight. After the loss of flight controls (IIRC NO elevator rudder or aelerons were working due to the damage) It is almost unthinkable that the crew go the thing anywhere near to landing let alone anyone surviving.

[Nicolas]

If the landing gear had been manufactured in accordance with Six Sigma and/or Lean, it would have collapsed the second it experienced any unusual stresses that weren't part of the conventional landing profile specification. Any safety factors to account such out-of-spec performance issues would have been eliminated by the Black Belts and bean counters during the design phase in order to minimize cost and maximize profits.

If properly investigated, I'm sure it'll be a pink slip for the engineer(s) who wasted such valuable resources and potentially had a negative effect on company profits.

Meanwhile, congrats to the crew for a successful landing, the flight controllers who brought them in safely to the best runway available for this situation, and the emergency response personnel who were ready just in case. :clap:

I'm sorry, but the way I (aerospace engineer) was learned Lean manufacturing, we never sacrificed anything concerning safety. Efficiency of the plant was the central point. The removal of any waste (with "waste" having a complex definition here :)). So only the things that aren't value-adding should be discarded. Making a nose gear strong enough so it can hold up when the wheels are blocked (or turend 90°) is certainly value-adding. Whether extra safety measures survive the pro-con (gain, chance of occurence, cost, weight...) tradeoff is a matter where lean principles should stay away from. Extra safety is not waste, hence not discarded by lean principles.

That's the mesage they gave us at least.

[Candy]

Nice landing
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L/


This was serious but Sioux city was in a different league altogether though. It is unbelievable anyone got out alive from that flight. After the loss of flight controls (IIRC NO elevator rudder or aelerons were working due to the damage) It is almost unthinkable that the crew go the thing anywhere near to landing let alone anyone surviving.
Agreed. I won't ask what awesome airline that was, either.

[WHarris]

I did not know this, but each seat is equiped with a TV.
From what I understand, those were turned off about 50 minutes before the landing.

[Candy]

They are going to interview a pregnant lady who was a passenger... all she could think about was that her husband was watching this! I may fall asleep soon.

[jumbo]

Agreed. I won't ask what awesome airline that was, either.
Hmmm now let me think....can i have 1 guess! :)

[Candy]

From what I understand, those were turned off about 50 minutes before the landing.
Apparently not, as reported by CNN.

[Maksutov]

I'm sorry, but the way I (aerospace engineer) was learned Lean manufacturing, we never sacrificed anything concerning safety. Efficiency of the plant was the central point. The removal of any waste (with "waste" having a complex definition here :)). So only the things that aren't value-adding should be discarded. Making a nose gear strong enough so it can hold up when the wheels are blocked (or turend 90°) is certainly value-adding. Whether extra safety measures survive the pro-con (gain, chance of occurence, cost, weight...) tradeoff is a matter where lean principles should stay away from. Extra safety is not waste, hence not discarded by lean principles.

That's the mesage they gave us at least.Yup, that's the message.

But when the stuff hits the fan (at least here in the US), eliminating waste means looking hard at anything claimed to be value-added. Anything, including safety features. If it's not in the performance specification, then it's not value-added and subject to elimination as an unnecessary waste. For instance, measures incorporated to eliminate potential safety problems are not considered to be "valued-added". Here the bean counters consider them waste. I know, I've had this discussion more times with more accountants than I care to recall.

You hit upon the key word, "extra". In the US at least there are no extras. If the customers didn't specify it and pay for it in the contract, and it adds to the cost of manufacturing, then it's waste and will be eliminated per the rules of Lean.

Over there safety may be important, here the priority is keeping the bean counters, shareholders, and CEOs with big bonuses riding on increased profits, happy.

[Candy]

Hmmm now let me think....can i have 1 guess! :)
Okay, but just one. :)

[Maksutov]

Apparently not, as reported by CNN.10 minutes before landing per MSNBC.

[Nicolas]

Theory and practice are 2 different things of course :). Well, in this case the main gear was up to the task. I don't know whether it is an obligation, but I wouldn't be too surprised by it.


According to CNN:


The pilot finally brought the plane down, back wheels first.


I'm not a pilot myself, but that seems a rather good choice considering you're flying an A-320 :D.

[Candy]

Theory and practice are 2 different things of course :). Well, in this case the main gear was up to the task. I don't know whether it is an obligation, but I wouldn't be too surprised by it.


According to CNN:



I'm not a pilot myself, but that seems a rather good choice considering you're flying an A-320 :D.
He flew around for several hours dumping fuel before landing. Or was this mentioned?

[Nicolas]

I read that on CNN yes. I thought the quote was funny because you should always land an A320 main wheels first. Only this time he kept the nose wheel up as long as possible.


Edit: watched the video again. Ouch poor nosegear, half of it is just skidded off :).

[Candy]

Dang it, I'm getting tired. If anyone sees the pregnant lady talking, please post it here.

[jumbo]

read that on CNN yes. I thought the quote was funny because you should always land an A320 main wheels first.
I noticed that too. I somehow think thats not an emergency procedure!

Ive heard that this model has such a small difference between take off weight and maximum landing weight that it doesnt have the capability to dump fuel. Not sure if this is true but it would explain the flying to burn off a bit of fuel if true

[Nicolas]

The A320 can dump fuel. HOwever, over populated areas and below a minimum altitude it isn't allowed (unless it is very critical I guess). At least on some planes, certain flaps positions don't allow for fuel dumping.

Anyway, dumping fuel could still be handy for an A320:

you take off, and hit an ULM. Result: left MLG gone, left wing a bit damaged, left engine a bit damaged. You want to land FAST. But your wing will probably hit the ground. SO you "quickly" dump almost all of your fuel and come in on fumes. Reduces the risk for a big fire A LOT.

[Donnie B.]

MSNBC mentioned that the pilots had the passengers and luggage moved to the back of the aircraft to reduce the weight on the front gear. That also helped him keep the nose up as long as possible after touchdown.

Heck of a piece of flying.

The Yahoo News article said the captain jokingly apologized for putting the front gear "six inches off the center line".

[Donnie B.]

The A320 can dump fuel. HOwever, over populated areas and below a minimum altitude it isn't allowed (unless it is very critical I guess). At least on some planes, certain flaps positions don't allow for fuel dumping.

Anyway, dumping fuel could still be handy for an A320:

you take off, and hit an ULM. Result: left MLG gone, left wing a bit damaged, left engine a bit damaged. You want to land FAST. But your wing will probably hit the ground. SO you "quickly" dump almost all of your fuel and come in on fumes. Reduces the risk for a big fire A LOT.In this case, though, there was no hurry. Flying around for awhile carried no extra risk, and gave time for thorough planning and "mental rehearsals" of the landing.

[Candy]

MSNBC mentioned that the pilots had the passengers and luggage moved to the back of the aircraft to reduce the weight on the front gear. That also helped him keep the nose up as long as possible after touchdown.

Heck of a piece of flying.

The Yahoo News article said the captain jokingly apologized for putting the front gear "six inches off the center line".
Me thinks the great legends are about to begin. Luggage moved? Who moved it?

Passengers not buckled in? Maybe, but I doubt it.

[Nicolas]

In this case, though, there was no hurry. Flying around for awhile carried no extra risk, and gave time for thorough planning and "mental rehearsals" of the landing.

Voila :).

Candy: "hand luggage" I think.

[Candy]

Voila :).

Candy: "hand luggage" I think.
Oh, the webs we weave...

I want to smack the press on insinuating such nonsense!

If I'm wrong, I will lather my face with whip cream during TAM3!

[Nicolas]

What would be so impossible about asking the passengers to take their hand luggage with them when they are moving to the rear seats (in case the plane wasn't totally full of course :)).

[Candy]

What would be so impossible about asking the passengers to take their hand luggage with them when they are moving to the rear seats (in case the plane wasn't totally full of course :)).
Oh, I was thinking cargo luggage. I still think this is far fetched. Let the cream begin!

[Nicolas]

cargo luggage would be rather "cumbersome" to say the least :D:D

[Donnie B.]

Obviously I meant carry-on luggage. Cargo luggage is inaccessible during flight, as far as I know.

And the passengers were not stacked in the aisles like cordwood, just moved to seats as far back in the aircraft as possible.

Let's not get silly, folks... :think:

[Nicolas]

That was what I assumed, Donnie B.

[Candy]

Obviously I meant carry-on luggage. Cargo luggage is inaccessible during flight, as far as I know.

And the passengers were not stacked in the aisles like cordwood, just moved to seats as far back in the aircraft as possible.

Let's not get silly, folks... :think:
Sorry, I'm sleepy. http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

I still need more information than just chat. Do you have a link?

[farmerjumperdon]

If the landing gear had been manufactured in accordance with Six Sigma and/or Lean, it would have collapsed the second it experienced any unusual stresses that weren't part of the conventional landing profile specification. Any safety factors to account such out-of-spec performance issues would have been eliminated by the Black Belts and bean counters during the design phase in order to minimize cost and maximize profits.

If properly investigated, I'm sure it'll be a pink slip for the engineer(s) who wasted such valuable resources and potentially had a negative effect on company profits.

Meanwhile, congrats to the crew for a successful landing, the flight controllers who brought them in safely to the best runway available for this situation, and the emergency response personnel who were ready just in case. :clap:

Interesting swipe at Six Sigma. Doesn't fit the description of how the principles are applied in our shop though. It occurs to me that there are pretty wide parameters for the application of the principles, and tools, but we consider risk mitigation extremely important, and the finance people do not get to decide anything alone. Their input is part of most decisions, but is only one of many factors. Actually, I'm amazed at the amount we do spend on risk mitigation. But we are almost never down, and that is very good for our bottom line in the long run.

[Donnie B.]

Sorry, I'm sleepy. http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

I still need more information than just chat. Do you have a link?Try this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9430871/

[HenrikOlsen]

It's funny how BBC World have more or less randomly been talking about circling for hours to "dump" fuel, and circling for hours to "burn" fuel.

Burning the fuel when you're in no hurry definitely makes most sense to me, and if they'd dumped the fuel there'd be no reason to stay up for hours.

[kucharek]

I guess, they first circled until the case was investigated and decisions taken and then went to dump fuel before landing. It would be silly first to dump fuel and then "Hey, we need another two hours to prepare the runway for the emergency landing!".

[Donnie B.]

I guess, they first circled until the case was investigated and decisions taken and then went to dump fuel before landing. It would be silly first to dump fuel and then "Hey, we need another two hours to prepare the runway for the emergency landing!".Not really. It was a transcontinental flight. They had fuel for six hours of flying time (at least). So three hours' worth of burnoff represented about half the total fuel load. Still plenty of time for adjusting the plans.

[mahesh]

hey guys

jetblue flight 292 was headlined in our e standard, london newspaper, early editions this a.m!!....pretty good coverage, but we are grateful that all the travellers are in one piece, though shaken...bless them.

but what's this about landing..... 'back wheels first'...i thought all planes, except sopwiths, have always landed with back wheels first...how else does one land?

[Maksutov]

Interesting swipe at Six Sigma. Doesn't fit the description of how the principles are applied in our shop though. It occurs to me that there are pretty wide parameters for the application of the principles, and tools, but we consider risk mitigation extremely important, and the finance people do not get to decide anything alone. Their input is part of most decisions, but is only one of many factors. Actually, I'm amazed at the amount we do spend on risk mitigation. But we are almost never down, and that is very good for our bottom line in the long run.That's how it is for companies that inherited the GE/Jack Welch version. That version means squeezing the system to get all the possible value now, and to hell with the future. I try not to fly on aircraft with GE engines.

Re "we are almost never down", that is part of the Welch "vision": push the stuff out the door no matter what. If you don't deliver something, then there are no accounts receivable. No accounts receivable, then no positive cash flow, and my bonus may be in jeopardy. If later the customer finds the product doesn't meet the specs, then that's what our marketing and legal departments are for.

DMEDI and DMAIC are techniques design, product, and process engineers should already be using and their management supporting. If they were doing their jobs, there would be no need for a Six Sigma bureaucracy.

And, don't forget, one part of the typical Black Belt charter is to get rid of the quality function. Make quality assurance everyone's responsibility and it winds up as no one's.

Deming is tossing and turning.

[Nicolas]

hey guys

jetblue flight 292 was headlined in our e standard, london newspaper, early editions this a.m!!....pretty good coverage, but we are grateful that all the travellers are in one piece, though shaken...bless them.

but what's this about landing..... 'back wheels first'...i thought all planes, except sopwiths, have always landed with back wheels first...how else does one land?

You can land front wheels first (small planes which have only one wheel in the tail, called "taildraggers"). You can land 3 wheels at the same time (also mainly small planes, but not for taildraggers IIRC). But any airliner that isn't a taildragger (and you'd have to go DC-3 era to find that) always is meant to land back wheels ("main landing gear") first. Only this time the pilot kept the nosewheel up for a long time, set it very easy to the ground and tried to minimize forces on the nose wheel as much as possible. But in journalism, that one quickly gets written down into "landed on the rear wheels" nonsense.

[Nicolas]

And, don't forget, one part of the typical Black Belt charter is to get rid of the quality function. Make quality assurance everyone's responsibility and it winds up as no one's.


Very few companies have a quality management system that works and still puts the quality management functions with the people instead of a separate department indeed. I think of Scaled Composites, where it seems to work. Maybe that is because many of the engineers/designers also have to fly into their flythingies :D.

Rutan clearly read the standard "quality management" works, as he said in interviews

"in my company we don't give a penalty for mistakes. We encourage finding and reporting them." The essence of the quality management system, that is.

Off-topic, this is :D:D.

[Taks]

If the landing gear had been manufactured in accordance with Six Sigma and/or Lean, it would have collapsed the second it experienced any unusual stresses that weren't part of the conventional landing profile specification. Any safety factors to account such out-of-spec performance issues would have been eliminated by the Black Belts and bean counters during the design phase in order to minimize cost and maximize profits.man, isn't Six Sigma a joke. i mean, really. oh it chaps my hide. TQM is another fad i won't miss. ISO, sheesh, what a waste of time. mil-hdbk is probably the only real quality doc ever needed, but it's sooooo over the top that we get those thousand dollar toilets all the time.

mark

[Taks]

oh, btw, i was at the pahonicks aeroport while this mess was going down. ugh. thankfully, beer tastes good to me. :)

i was riveted by the events as they unfolded. the close in flyby look-see they gave the tower freaked the whole bar out. we were all hoping things would turn out OK, and thankful when they did.

mark

[taurus26]

Thank God they did!

[HenrikOlsen]

Thank the extensive and intense training commercial pilots get, it had more to do with getting them down in one piece.
There where no miracles involved.

[Nicolas]

Indeed no miracles. A bit of luck that the nosegear (or what was left of it) didn't encounter runway bumps on which it broke off, plus the lack of a slipping motion. Very good piloting, good design and a bit of luck sums up to one perfect emergency landing.

Sioux city wasn't a miracle. But it was amazing talent (the feel of flying) and professionality of the pilots combined with LOTS of luck that saved at least some lives there. Those pilots only did what they should do (plus they were saving themselves as well) but the medals afterwards weren't over the top IMO!
(I'm a bit in doubt whether they should have received them though, for the simple reason that some other pilots tried just as hard, were just as professional and brave but could not save the aircraft due to different circumstances.)

[publiusr]

I was nervous they were standing under the nose. It loos to be like they would have had some mobile starirway under the nose for an additional prop.

It would have been bad to be stepping out on the stairs to the side and have the plane drop in a scissors action with a poor soul caught in between.

Nasty.

There was a tornado on the ground in Minn. and a level 5 storm in the gulf as that plane was coming down.

That is some bad juju.

[Nicolas]

I haven't seen images, but I assume they placed a stand underneath it like they use when loading cargo planes, or even replace landing gears? Emergency crews certainly will have lift systems.

Getting the plane away afterwards must have been a fun task...

[sarongsong]

...Very good piloting, good design and a bit of luck sums up to one perfect emergency landing....Yes, but so far, have seen neither pilot nor crew that pulled it off, in the TV coverage.

[jt-3d]

They're probably busy talking to the FAA, demanding raises, drinking beer, stuff like that. Airline personel don't get to just yak away to the media. They have to be given permission to by the airlines' public relations department and that ain't going to happen until the airline covers it's posterior.

[sarongsong]

Okay, that makes sense.
Airbus has some covering to do, too:
September 23, 2005 (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetblue23sep23,0,1294624.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
"...Flight 292 marked at least the seventh time that the front landing gear of an Airbus jet has locked at a 90-degree angle, forcing pilots to land commercial airliners under emergency conditions...No one has been injured in the incidents, which span about a decade..."

[Trebuchet]

Now that I've missed a couple days of this thread, my comments:
1. I kept having to change channels when the announcers said something stupid. That took about five minutes, on the average. One guy, a supposed "expert" said he didn't understand the previous serivice bulletin regarding a nose gear steering o-ring because o-rings are hydraulic components and the A320 is a Fly-By-Wire airplane and doesn't need hydraulics!
2. Excellent job by the pilots!
3. I was surprised they didn't use the wing spoilers on the landing. They're normally used to kill lift and help braking performance by increasing weight on the wheels. They also tend to cause a bit of an upward pitching moment, which would have taken weight off the nosewheel.
4. In the replays, after the wheel burst into flame, you could see the flame brighten whenever they were going over the intermittent paint stripes on the centerline! Interesting.
5. Lean/6Sigma -- better keep my mouth shut about this! I will say that no process is immune to being corrupted by management greed.

[Candy]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050922/050922_jetblue_hlrg.h2.jpg
“While rotated nose landing gear is uncommon, it has happened in the past, with a similar outcome — safe landing, no injuries,” Greczyn said in an e-mail. “Last night’s incident concluded exactly as Airbus expected it would. Flight crews are trained to handle such situations and aircraft are designed to withstand such landings.”
Simply amazing, Donnie B., but there was no mention of the moving carry-on luggage or passengers to the rear.

[boppa]

assuming the moving people rearward story was true in the first place-how much effect would it have anyway
i looked at http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=23 which listed the a320 weight as 42.2 tonnes and pass cap of 179
i can `think' that geomeotry of landing gear wtc would cause a rearward weight transfer yes..

but would it cause a `significant' effect on the nosewheel if it was done??

(any bored maths types would like to churn some numbers?)

[darkhunter]

I haven't seen images, but I assume they placed a stand underneath it like they use when loading cargo planes, or even replace landing gears? Emergency crews certainly will have lift systems.

Getting the plane away afterwards must have been a fun task...
they have equipment for that (https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx?niin=1730000138813&newpage=1):)

[Candy]

they have equipment for that (https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx?niin=1730000138813&newpage=1):)

Strange, some weird security message popped up when I clicked on your link. Great, the military has all my PC information now. ;)

[boppa]

Strange, some weird security message popped up when I clicked on your link. Great, the military has all my PC information now. ;)


nah just the military hasnt learned to use the net yet lol(and they program nuke missiles--shudder)

bad cookie

(altho it shows candy has decent net security tho lol)

um candy care to take over the military programming duties??

id feel safer lol

[Candy]

LOL, boppa! :)

http://home.att.net/~candy.stair/AirplaneJack.jpg

The JACK,AIRCRAFT LANDI is going for a mere $7,828.00 USD. At least, that's the way I read it.

[tmosher]

assuming the moving people rearward story was true in the first place-how much effect would it have anyway
i looked at http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=23 which listed the a320 weight as 42.2 tonnes and pass cap of 179
i can `think' that geomeotry of landing gear wtc would cause a rearward weight transfer yes..

but would it cause a `significant' effect on the nosewheel if it was done??

(any bored maths types would like to churn some numbers?)

It would change the center of gravity enough to change the loading on the nose gear. Back in my loadmaster days, moving just 400 lbs of freight in a 12,000 load would have a significant effect on the aircraft's CG.

Tom

[Nicolas]

And today, that's still the case :).

I'm sure they even got a load chart in their hands when the decision was made to move people to the back. The location of the load in an aircraft is of serious importance. Not like you'd tip over when somebody heads for the toilet, but seats are appointed in such a way to get a good cg if needed.

In the design of my Canard cargo plane, the position of the load was of extreme importance. Every cm counted!

LINK: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18474]Canard

[sarongsong]

Clickable wheel pics (http://www.avweb.com/newspics/jetbluegearcomp.jpg)

[Candy]

Clickable wheel pics (http://www.avweb.com/newspics/jetbluegearcomp.jpg)
Not to sound cruel, but that is one awesome photo!

[Nicolas]

That must have been one stiff strut and smooth (yet abrasive) runway in order to do THAT to a metal wheel without further consequences!

Indeed Candy, awesome photos. Thanks for linking them Sarongsong.

[captain swoop]

Well, the wheel will have been some kind of alloy, I don't think it would have taken that much to grind it away.

[Nicolas]

Still, to grind away half the wheel without blocking things into the runway and breaking off...

This grinding force is the same force that otherwise is been taken care of by the brakes in a civilised manner. Those pictures give me even more respect for the brakes! (rolling vs gliding resistance, ABS etc, I know but still :))

[Trebuchet]

We were looking at these pictures at work. The wheels look to me as if they are of two different types. One, the white one, appears to be aluminum, but the grey one looks like it might be some sort of composite.

Anyone know anything about Airbus wheels?

[kucharek]

We were looking at these pictures at work. The wheels look to me as if they are of two different types. One, the white one, appears to be aluminum, but the grey one looks like it might be some sort of composite.

I'm pretty sure it's the same, after all, it were left and right wheel. Maybe they look different because one was front-facing and one back-facing during this landing, so they get dirty differently.

[Nicolas]

Plus the influence of the anti-fire foam sprayed on afterwards.

Airplane wheels are made of a (light yet strong) aluminum alloy IIRC, which scrapes off quite rapidly (aluminum ain't that hard, and while the alloy is harder it still ain't titanium :)).

[boppa]

hmm ok then
personally i thought that with the total weight of the aircraft and the forces developed by the control planes that it wouldnt have made that much difference
flying yes but once its on the ground and rolling(or skidding in this case) then 2/3's of umm..
i might rephase that bit...
i can see it would make a difference to the weight on the nosewheel-but would it be a noticable difference?

[Nicolas]

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say :).

[tmosher]

Plus the influence of the anti-fire foam sprayed on afterwards.

Airplane wheels are made of a (light yet strong) aluminum alloy IIRC, which scrapes off quite rapidly (aluminum ain't that hard, and while the alloy is harder it still ain't titanium :)).

Aluminum or magnesium alloy. Most likely aluminum.

Tom