Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on September 21, 2005, 06:46:07 PM
-
Watching this live on foxnews right now. An Airbus A320 has a twisted front nose gear and dumped fuel over the ocean. It's about to make a "soft landing" in LA.
Developing
-
What is stall speed to that plane?
-
not sure but 145 people on board.
-
Whats the word?
And what Channel
-
Landing within the next 10 mins.
-
wtg air bus..wtf is that?..soem mechanis screwed up?..or design flaw?
No way for a320 to dump fuel excep tto burn it
the front landing gear is locked ian a 90 degree position
There landing at LAX becuase of superior Emergency equipment.
poor folks on board..hold tight..thath looks scary as sheite
Imagine wacthing this from the airport..
omfg..
I think being a pilot adds to the heart wrenching while wacthing this
pray for a safe landing on a foam covered runway..
-
Fox News, CNN etc etc
-
feels eire watching this live when these people might crash and burn. I know this isn't an extreme catastophy but still.
Question for you pilot types......If you had a choice between front gear stuck up or front gear twisted at 90 degrees what would you choose?
-
a live internet stream: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/
-
if they could raise all the gear back up..belly landing is a much more safer way of "landing"
not much of a decision
smooth landing or gear thjat may collapse..or ..gear that is defintly grinding down ..and colapsing
100kts is stall speed?..seesm lo to me..soemn pilot just said it on tv
either way...Jte Blue has TVs on...there wacthing themselves right now: (
-
Hopefully there will soon be 145 folks with a good story to tell their friends & family.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
wtg air bus..wtf is that?..soem mechanis screwed up?..or design flaw?
More design flaws: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/021016/L/
-
Hope they get down ok.
Haven't seen anything yet to change my mind about Airbus quality.
Again.. hope those folks get outta that thing ok.
-
WTFG!!!
Nice job!
-
Nice landing.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
if they could raise all the gear back up..belly landing is a much more safer way of "landing"
not much of a decision
smooth landing or gear thjat may collapse..or ..gear that is defintly grinding down ..and colapsing
Say that again?
-
that was very spooky with all those flames. WTG!
-
wow!!!!!!!!!1
Airbus..you build soem dam fine gear
I didnt think it would hold up so well
nice job pilots...and wheeewww pour me a drink said the passenger
again...WOW!!!!.insane landing gear
did grumman make them?
-
yup WTG!
-
WOOOO!! NOW BACK TO HURRICANE RITA COVERAGE....and the tornado in Minn.
-
Man, bet they design a fuel dump capability as having to fly around to burn fuel absolutely sucks.
I'm not flying Airbus or anyplane unless their planes have that capability.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
if they could raise all the gear back up..belly landing is a much more safer way of "landing"
After watching that landing, I doubt it.
-
Great ending.
-
ya i agree fishu ..wow ..who typed that
1) landing with only partial landing gear bad...very unsatble
2) majority of aircraft of given the choice..would rather land either all down ..or all up..no partial..again it makes you very unstable..hard to steer when "landing"
dam nice landing gear
and..hell maybe im wrong with this strong of gear..I mean..wtf who needs wheels now?...that think held on
-
Very nice job on the landing.
Very nice job on whoever made that gear.
Nice to see something actually built to last for a change
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Man, bet they design a fuel dump capability as having to fly around to burn fuel absolutely sucks.
I'm not flying Airbus or anyplane unless their planes have that capability.
Why? Burning the fuel off is simpler and safer than dealing with a dump.
If the plane can't dump fuel, the only thing they've lost is time.
-
Glad they made it down safe
The commentator dribble was insufferable tho...eh gad....hyperventilation? Brown bag breathing? lol...
Sweet landing tho
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
1) landing with only partial landing gear bad...very unsatble
2) majority of aircraft of given the choice..would rather land either all down ..or all up..no partial..again it makes you very unstable..hard to steer when "landing"
I don't find lacking the nose gear so bad, because the fuselage will hold up pretty well even if it travels 100kts along the runway.
I find ruptured fuel tanks and broken wings worse than broken nose fuselage (with no gears, it'd be whole fuselage).
However if left or right landing gear is bad, then that's a problem.
-
Flamable paint on the runway?
WTF?
Every time the strut/rim/tires touched a paint line the flames REALLY sparked up.
Hope somebody gets THAT fixed.
Congrats to the pilots.. nice job.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Why? Burning the fuel off is simpler and safer than dealing with a dump.
If the plane can't dump fuel, the only thing they've lost is time.
Yeah good point for this flight. However we cant predict all mechanical failures. Hydraulic leak? Better to have to put her down now rather than burn off fuel.
Imagine now that instead of a mechanical emergency, someone had a heart attack and needs immediate medical care. I'd sure like the pilot having the option for a fuel dump if the need arises and time is of the essence.
I know, a bunch of what ifs.
-
Now it's time for the FOD walkdown.
Oh joy.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Why? Burning the fuel off is simpler and safer than dealing with a dump.
If the plane can't dump fuel, the only thing they've lost is time.
Time can be a factor on your side.. or dead against it. Not having the ability to emergency dump fuel is a liability.
That's another problem for Airbus.
-
Same thing happened to one of our charter Navajos a couple years ago. I was working the line when the tower called down with one of our airplanes inbound with an emergency, was kind of odd since I didn't recognize the tail number as the charter aircraft were based at a different airport. He came in, circled a few times and we could clearly see a nosewheel 90º to the long axis of the airplane.
Chief pilot was flying at the time on a 135 check and he made the best landing I've seen in any airplane and left a 1000' long black mark right down the middle of the centerline about 1500' down the runway. A lot of smoke and that was it. Hooked up the Jetporter to it and towed it in to the shop. New tire, tube and nosewheel locking pin and the airplane was as good as new.
What we saw on the news tonight was outstanding airmanship and I've seen it twice now. Great job!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Flamable paint on the runway?
WTF?
Every time the strut/rim/tires touched a paint line the flames REALLY sparked up.
Hope somebody gets THAT fixed.
Congrats to the pilots.. nice job.
I think it was the magnesium/aluminum wheels that were igniting/flaming on contact. The extremely white "hot" flames is a characteristic.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Yeah good point for this flight. However we cant predict all mechanical failures. Hydraulic leak? Better to have to put her down now rather than burn off fuel.
Imagine now that instead of a mechanical emergency, someone had a heart attack and needs immediate medical care. I'd sure like the pilot having the option for a fuel dump if the need arises and time is of the essence.
I know, a bunch of what ifs.
Exactly... Here's one... What if the fuel dump fails and begins an uncommanded fuel dump midway between LA and Hawaii?
:)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Time can be a factor on your side.. or dead against it. Not having the ability to emergency dump fuel is a liability.
That's another problem for Airbus.
Can Boeing dump fuel?
-
Fuel dumps aren't on all plane models and not even on every fuel tank.
For example plane might have fuel dumping pumps for the wing tanks, but not for the center tank, ie. B757/B767
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Time can be a factor on your side.. or dead against it. Not having the ability to emergency dump fuel is a liability.
That's another problem for Airbus.
They discussed this with an Airbus instructor pilot on our local news. He said the ability to dump fuel is only put onto large aircraft that have a major difference between takeoff weight and maximum landing weight. The 320, 737 etc. can almost land at the same weight they take off at.
-
That fire was the tires, surely?
Whatever though...I am in awe of that pilot and his crew.
I've been on planes that have landed waaaaaaaaay worse than that with perfect gear. The plane stayed on that centre line until it stopped!!
Outstanding.
:aok :aok
-
Originally posted by Curval
That fire was the tires, surely?
Whatever though...I am in awe of that pilot and his crew.
I've been on planes that have landed waaaaaaaaay worse than that with perfect gear. The plane stayed on that centre line until it stopped!!
Outstanding.
:aok :aok
I'd bet that the shaking and such was pretty bad, but not visible on film.
-
Yea, your prolly right.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I've been on planes that have landed waaaaaaaaay worse than that with perfect gear.
aint dat da truth, i had a 737 landing so hard i thought it blew a tire, asked the pilot about it afterwards, he had no comment.
-
Not sure about airliners but the F-15 has the ability to dump fuel. I have yet to ever see the system fail. The only thing remotely close to a failure is when there is a drastic change in temperature and the surge boxes are full. The butterfly valve will open and allow the pressure to vent off.
Our system even has the ability to vent fuel to whatever amount the aircrew wants. Once it's reached this value the system will automatically shut itself off. I'd have to guess fuel dump systems are more than trust worthy.
I'm suprised they didn't use Edwards to land that bird. That's what our dry lake bed is there for. Pilots land on it constantly just for training and we've even had a C-17 land due to an almost identical failure.
-
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L/
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
They discussed this with an Airbus instructor pilot on our local news. He said the ability to dump fuel is only put onto large aircraft that have a major difference between takeoff weight and maximum landing weight. The 320, 737 etc. can almost land at the same weight they take off at.
Ahh that explains it then. Obviously because of the extra weight of the fuel, burning it off had to be done to not tax the front gear any further.
If it was an emergency where time to land was of the essence, they would be able to land with full fuel load.
Okay, I'll fly Airbus :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Why? Burning the fuel off is simpler and safer than dealing with a dump.
If the plane can't dump fuel, the only thing they've lost is time.
Not to mention that in burning it off there is alwasy the possibility the malfunction might go away.
I wouldnt be in any rush to make a crash or emergancy landing untill I had to
IT also provides time to the other aircraft in the area to land and reroute other aircraft to other airports in case of a worst case scenareo
-
You couldn't have made a better landing. That was exceptional.
Charon
-
"He (the pilot) joked that he was sorry he put the plane down 6 inches off the center line." - AP
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Exactly... Here's one... What if the fuel dump fails and begins an uncommanded fuel dump midway between LA and Hawaii?
:)
Redundancy. Two separate valves have to be open to dump fuel from any tank. A single "uncommanded valve opening" won't do it.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
"He (the pilot) joked that he was sorry he put the plane down 6 inches off the center line." - AP
:aok
:lol :rofl
That pilots is damn good..
And is being hailed a hero for putting it down so soft, so smooth, and so accuratly!
Amen!
A new age hero in a time in need of them.
-
Sounds weird, but I was clapping and cheering (like a damn TD score) when they landed that thing safely, even though I suspected it was going to be a successful landing, that nose gear can handle twice the weight that its designed for.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
"He (the pilot) joked that he was sorry he put the plane down 6 inches off the center line." - AP
:aok
Unknown to him, that flamable paint on the 'centerline' posed the largest risk of fire to the aircraft. Watch the landing replays closely. Scary.
Agree tho.. that pilot did some very professional aviating when the chips went down.
-
I don't think it's a defect, I think it's one of the ground crew that didn't put the pin back after towing the plane. (Pin to be removed for towing to allow the nose wheel to swing freely).:D
BTW, do you know how anoying it is to try to buy food when every business is closed? I'm back from my flight, I hope my flight is not going to be canceled tonight, otherwise I'm stuck in Houston. At least I live in a brick building.:rolleyes:
-
I think Frenchy has it.
It's critical; my airline had a policy that ground crew had to show the pin held with both hands flag extended, overhead before the Captain would give the acknowledgement that it was clear to push.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Redundancy. Two separate valves have to be open to dump fuel from any tank. A single "uncommanded valve opening" won't do it.
:aok
-
If it were there(pin),it proly gone with the front gear i think
-
"At least I live in a brick building."
I wouldn't put faith in bricks. What you need is a building made of blocks...concrete blocks.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Unknown to him, that flamable paint on the 'centerline' posed the largest risk of fire to the aircraft. Watch the landing replays closely. Scary.
Agree tho.. that pilot did some very professional aviating when the chips went down.
I wouldn't have noticed that if you didn't point it out. Every time the plane goes over the centerline strip is when it flames up.
Question to the rest:
If the gear pin was left in wouldn't that not allowed the pilot to steer with the nose gear?
If it was just a retract pin (like those I'm used to seeing on the F16 struts that keep the gear from collapsing on the ground) How would that have turned the thing sideways?
-
Yeah, it should have made the nws inop.
Guess we'll have to wait to see what really happened.
-
wonder if he is looking for a squad?
-
Slinger not totally sure about the F-16 but there is no such thing as a mechanical nose wheel steering lockout on the F-15. The pin is purely to keep the gear from collapsing when hydraulics are off.
There is a mechanical lockout mechanism in the nws actuator though. It is only there to keep the tire from spinning 360. Our system also has an electrical lockout for nosewheel steering. This will completely disable nws. You also have the option for tighter turn radius by depressing another button.
I've seen our pilots oversteer enough to snap the mechanical lockout on the nws.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Slinger not totally sure about the F-16 but there is no such thing as a mechanical nose wheel steering lockout on the F-15. The pin is purely to keep the gear from collapsing when hydraulics are off.
There is a mechanical lockout mechanism in the nws actuator though. It is only there to keep the tire from spinning 360. Our system also has an electrical lockout for nosewheel steering. This will completely disable nws. You also have the option for tighter turn radius by depressing another button.
I've seen our pilots oversteer enough to snap the mechanical lockout on the nws.
The pin you're talking about is the one I'm referring to. (basically the one's you check on "AC safe for mait.")
I can't think of why you'd want to pin the nose wheel steering.
-
Guns, some airliners have a nosewheel steering bypass pin. The Boeings in my experience all had them. Don't know about the 'Bus.
The pin actually holds a handle in position. The handle actuates a valve which causes the steering control fluid to bypass the steering actuators thus allowing the nose strut to be rotated freely. It's used primarily during towing and when pushing back from the gate.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Guns, some airliners have a nosewheel steering bypass pin. The Boeings in my experience all had them. Don't know about the 'Bus.
The pin actually holds a handle in position. The handle actuates a valve which causes the steering control fluid to bypass the steering actuators thus allowing the nose strut to be rotated freely. It's used primarily during towing and when pushing back from the gate.
If it took off with said pin installed would that cause the gear to lock 90 degrees? In addition wouldn't the pilot notice he didn't have nose wheel steering control while taxing?
-
That's the mystery.
It wouldn't retract if it wasn't centered and it might deflect fully at speed.
But it sure seems he would have noticed the lack of nosewheel steering as soon as he started to taxi.
I'm not familiar with Airbus systems but you'd know it as soon as you tried to turn on a Boeing.
They may have a completely different system though.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But it sure seems he would have noticed the lack of nosewheel steering as soon as he started to taxi.
I'm not familiar with Airbus systems but you'd know it as soon as you tried to turn on a Boeing.
They may have a completely different system though.
They both are from the same world, with same physics :)
Someone needs to find the accident reports on previous cases, where the nosewheel breaks like this.
Like the B747, which photo I posted above.
Someone also mentioned C17 doing it.. but I guess those investigations aren't released to the public.
-
I don't know much about this, and this may be a stupid question, but why do they put flamable paint on a runway?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I don't know much about this, and this may be a stupid question, but why do they put flamable paint on a runway?
It doesn't necessarily have to be flammable..
Could be that the nose gear was pulverizing the paint and the small particles of paint dusted off by the gear ignited.
Just like small particles of steel burns nicely.
-
And interesting coincidence is JetBlue is one of the few airlines with live TV via Sat dish to evary seat. The passengers were watching themselves land on the TV.
Would you want to know ??
Would the TV commentators have changed their commentary if they knew the pax were watching ??
A new twist to the media game.
-
Mentioned on the news this AM that there have been 7 A320's with the same issue over the past 10 years.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
Would the TV commentators have changed their commentary if they knew the pax were watching ??
Not really, because at least on MSNBC they were aware of it.
-
All the local stations in Southern Ca. mentioned the sat TV.
-
The fire from the video looks to me like it's most likely from a magnesium alloy wheel after the tire blew. A pilot in the F-4 squadron I was with lost hydraulic power and was forced to use pneumatics to land. He missed the hook for the emergency arrest, and was applying pneumatics to brake the plane. But the right main wheel locked up, blew the tire and started trailing a magnesium flame. Tower told the pilot he was on fire. The plane was drifting off the runway. The pilot elected to eject, but the RIO had already unstrapped. Pilot was okay, RIO killed, plane stayed on the edge of the runway, the magnesium wheel ground down four or five inches.
Best regards,
Cement
-
Originally posted by Fishu
They both are from the same world, with same physics :)
It's a different system though. They have a cockpit switch that depressurizes ns steering. I don't know if they have a gear pin that will do that or not.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I don't know much about this, and this may be a stupid question, but why do they put flamable paint on a runway?
extra style points?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Mentioned on the news this AM that there have been 7 A320's with the same issue over the past 10 years.
If it don't say 'Boeing', I just ain't going.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If it don't say 'Boeing', I just ain't going.
and theres a photo proof of B747 having similar problems in '98 and someone already mentioned C17.
Nobody checked out how many similar problems Boeing has had.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
The fire from the video looks to me like it's most likely from a magnesium alloy wheel after the tire blew. A pilot in the F-4 squadron I was with lost hydraulic power and was forced to use pneumatics to land. He missed the hook for the emergency arrest, and was applying pneumatics to brake the plane. But the right main wheel locked up, blew the tire and started trailing a magnesium flame. Tower told the pilot he was on fire. The plane was drifting off the runway. The pilot elected to eject, but the RIO had already unstrapped. Pilot was okay, RIO killed, plane stayed on the edge of the runway, the magnesium wheel ground down four or five inches.
Best regards,
Cement
Watch the video closely, the fire get's flamed when it goes over the centerline stripe. Pretty interesting but yes the paint dosnt have to be flamable to burn like that.
Fishu I'd like to see these pictures can you post them?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Fishu I'd like to see these pictures can you post them?
erm.. in the first few replies.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
erm.. in the first few replies.
Ahhh forgot that this was a multi page thread. So one photo of a 747 is a design flaw and needs to be turned into a eurotard airbus Vrs. Boeing argument?
-
I saw several replays of the video. The flame does get more intense and it seems to correspond with the centerline stripes. However as it gets slowed down, perhaps 2/3 into the time the nose wheel is on the ground the flame gets 'intense' and stays there until it no longer has fuel (particles from the wheel and intense heat from the friction) and the airplane stops.
You can see the fire staying intense toward the end of the roll and it didn't have any particular correlation to the runway stripes. Could possibly the fire be intensified by additional pressure settling onto the nose wheel just like it would if you normally landed, because that's basically what this was despite the drama induced the television. When you land an airplane with an oleo strut nose wheel you're going to have a little fluctuation in the long axis of the airplane and can feel the airplane rising slightly and falling much like the shocks on your car would going over a railroad track. It seems like the airplane was just 'settling' all the way down and then when the weight stayed on the nose wheel, the fire stayed intense.
I personally don't think just the contact with a runway stripe is going to cause a fire or that we run the risk that it is 'flammable' like its been said a few times. Its either the additional paint particles (just like grain silos explode from time to time) or the huge amount of weight varying on the nose wheel as the airplane settles that was causing the brief flares.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ahhh forgot that this was a multi page thread. So one photo of a 747 is a design flaw and needs to be turned into a eurotard airbus Vrs. Boeing argument?
It wasn't meant to turn it into an eurotard argument, in fact it was to prevent the .. well, you used eurotard, so i guess i can say.. ameritard Boeing vs. Airbus argument.
I don't myself give a crap for whether it's Boeing or Airbus, I'd preferably see both doing well.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It wasn't meant to turn it into an eurotard argument, in fact it was to prevent the .. well, you used eurotard, so i guess i can say.. ameritard Boeing vs. Airbus argument.
I don't myself give a crap for whether it's Boeing or Airbus, I'd preferably see both doing well.
:huh ;)
-
Gunslinger, you are right. I saw a different feed of the landing and there definitely appears to be a correlation between the centerline stripe and the intensity of flame. I wouldn't know the cause, but my guess would be the increased abrasion of tiny reflective beads in the centerline paint increased the flame of the metal alloy of the wheel.
18 DEC 2004 Reflective beads damage airplane engines
Runway paint is being removed at Seattle-Boeing Field Airport because of tiny abrasive, reflective beads in the paint. Since the taxiways were striped earlier this month, the beads from the paint are blamed for causing excessive wear on engines. The wear was found during inspections and several had to be replaced. (AP)
Best Regards.
Cement
-
I'd say that would lead into removing the beads from other airports as well.
-
My comments on some of the issues and questions in this thread.
1) Cant retract the landing gear with the nose wheel turned. Wouldnt fit in the wheel well, and the Brake Steering Computer wouldnt allow retraction on an Airbus with the nose gear turned.
Landing even with just them main gear would be preferable in my opinion as you would still be able to steer with differantial braking, and you would also retain braking to stop the aircraft. One the belly you arent much more than along for the ride and just hope it stays on, and stops on the runway.
2) Yes, the wheels and axles will throw out a tremendous amount of sparks while being ground down.
3) The steering bypass pin would have had to have been removed prior to takeoff or they couldnt have steered the aircraft to the runway for takeoff. Airbus aircraft do have nosewheel steering bypass.
4) Very doubtful that Airbus made the landing gear, most gear are produced by one or two companies and sold to aircraft manufacturers. Dowty Rotol being by far the most common that I know of. (757 and B2 Bomber share the same nose gear)
5) The ability to dump fuel, as pointed out only exists on a limited number aircraft designs, typically widebody aircraft, that have a large disparity between max allowable takeoff weight and max allowable landing weight. B747 has it, I think the DC10 does, but I cant remember a narrowbody with it.
Only a few reasons come to mind that I think would have caused that nosewheel problem.
1) Steering system computer failure
2) Broken scizzors link.
3) Weird hydraulic anamoly.
The only real thing we can do is wait for the results of the investigation.
dago
-
Here are the preliminary results of the investigation
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050927X01540&key=1
-
here's a closer look at the damage to the landing gear:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/642_1127950858_mvc-001l.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/642_1127950953_mvc-002l.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/642_1127951030_mvc-003l.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/642_1127951080_mvc-004l.jpg)
-
If it isn't Air Bus I'm gonna make a big fuss.