Jetblue Flt 292 Bur-jfk Diverted To Lgb

[KCFlyer]

You are a complete idiot with your anti-Americanism. The vast majority of Americans wouldn't wish that on anybody; I'm sure those watching were saying a prayer for the crew and pax. Maybe you should move to Cuba, being that you have such a grudge against Americans, because you certainly do not hold any values.

[post="303916"][/post]​

The vast majority of Americans certainly wouldn't wish that on anybody, but on the other hand a very large number of Americans would tune in just to see a plane crash. That's why the American media has a gazillion cameras following the president...not so much to cover what he has to say, but to be the first to broadcast an assasination attempt. It's morbid curiosity. Heck, a lot of folks watch NASCAR in hopes of seeing the crashes.

From what I understand, following "breaking news" such as police chases is pretty common in LA. Most of the coverage is hoping to show a car crash somewhere. So the LA media got an airliner in distress, and interrupts programming for almost 4 hours while they video the plane flying circles in the sky. Thank heavens for the dramatic flames when the nosegear touched...it provided a "highlight" for the wait.

Here in KC a while back , a Vanguard jet had a "landing gear problem" and was going to make an emergency landing. Live TV coverage showed...a 737 landing normally. But there was live coverage "just in case". Why was a news crew there if not to be the first to film the flaming wreckage of a jetliner?

 

[LUV2FLYHIGH]

KUDOS JETBLUE CREW!!! GREAT JOB!!

THEY NEED A ROUND AFTER ONE HELL OF A DAY AT THE OFFICE!! I GOT THE FIRST ONE!!

I agree those were some pretty stupid questions!!

 

[Bob Owens]

Dizel8,Sep 22 2005, 02:34 PM]
Hopeful,

No need to yell. The nose gear may have failed due to simple mechanical error, these things do happen.

Seems odd that its the exact same thing that happened at UAL to one of their outsourced aircraft. I believe the company, which was US based was fined.


Now, outsourcing is not a good thing, it certainly affects the US worker, on that we agree, sadly it is done by most if not all airlines in some shape. As for the mx work done by TACA and Air Canada, wile you may not like it, they both enjoy excellent reputation for competetnce, service and reliability.

The fact is that the US has one of the best safety records. As more aircraft are contracted out to lower cost providers who lack trained personel and third world countries we can expect to see more and more incidences and our safety record will start to look more and more like those of third world countries.

Right now Jet Blue has two aicraft with heavy damage due to maintenance errors out of service. One in JFK and another in LAX, an airport where they dont even have service to. With just 60 airplanes they probaly have the highest percentage of heavily damaged aircraft due to maintenance errors of any carrier. Just because they have not killed anyone yet should not make you feel safe.

 

[mrfish3726]

Fox News had an HP pilot on right after it landed safely that said the nose gear was designed to rotate 90 degrees upon rotation if a problem was detected. Can anyone out there confirm this?

Pilot doesn't know what he is talking about. The reason that the gear swung 90 degrees to the ceterline axis is the oleo strut was not assembled properly. There is a BIG RED CAUTION in the manual to make sure you assemble it properly or damage to the aircraft can occur!

 

[Skymess]

Wouldn't the fact that this happened to UAL with the same type of airplane indicate more culpability on Airbus's part then Jet Blu maintenance?

I don't know anything about fixing gear problems, or any other type of maintenance. I am just looking at the fact that the article on the UAL incident could be an article on Jet Blue's incident yesterday. The scenarios and damage to the aircraft were the same.

I don't believe in outsourcing maintenance for nationalistic issues and also because it is harder to police something done under a different country's flag. I don't necessarily know if they are to blame for this or not. I can just tell you that my low opinion of Airbus has gotten much lower after seeing this is plane two.

I don't necessarily think they should be taken out of service any more than I think that hunk of garbage 737 should, but I do think it needs to be looked at closely.

 

[local 12 proud]

Wouldn't the fact that this happened to UAL with the same type of airplane indicate more culpability on Airbus's part then Jet Blu maintenance?

I don't know anything about fixing gear problems, or any other type of maintenance. I am just looking at the fact that the article on the UAL incident could be an article on Jet Blue's incident yesterday. The scenarios and damage to the aircraft were the same.

I don't believe in outsourcing maintenance for nationalistic issues and also because it is harder to police something done under a different country's flag. I don't necessarily know if they are to blame for this or not. I can just tell you that my low opinion of Airbus has gotten much lower after seeing this is plane two.

I don't necessarily think they should be taken out of service any more than I think that hunk of garbage 737 should, but I do think it needs to be looked at closely.

[post="304184"][/post]​

Its not Airbus's fault because someone fails to follow maintenance manual procedures!

 

[runway4]

Right now Jet Blue has two aicraft with heavy damage due to maintenance errors out of service. One in JFK and another in LAX, an airport where they dont even have service to. With just 60 airplanes they probaly have the highest percentage of heavily damaged aircraft due to maintenance errors of any carrier. Just because they have not killed anyone yet should not make you feel safe.

[post="304167"][/post]​

Well, if their boilerplate is accurate, B6 has 81 Airbii in its fleet right now. And is it totally conclusive that this was a maintenance error? And the one in JFK -- how and where was that damaged exactly?

 

[Hopeful]

Well, if their boilerplate is accurate, B6 has 81 Airbii in its fleet right now. And is it totally conclusive that this was a maintenance error? And the one in JFK -- how and where was that damaged exactly?

[post="304207"][/post]​

Engine fire causing damage to the wing. Airbus has been doing the repairs.

 

[skyflyr69]

I bet the cockpit crew had at least one laidoff USAIRWAYS pilot in there!

FABULOUS JOB!!

 

[Dizel8]

If the problem was outsourced mx, specifically TACA or Air Canada, then why has neither operator reported the same problem? Who serviced the UAL strut or the AWA strut? Is there a pattern to be discerned, was it the same MRO? Has any inouse mx ever had issues with nose struts?

The engine fire, while true, has little if any relevance to the incident concerning the nose strut, so let us leave that out of the current discussion.

It outsourcing good for America and the American worker, heck no, we need to retain as many jobs as possible within our borders and done by legally employed workers. That is an issue we all face, but as we all know, that is a decision above our "paygrade". If it can be shown, that outsourcing mx is less safe than inhouse and that inhouse mx produces less errors, then we migt see a change, but using relatively isolated incidences, without a discernible pattern probably will not change the current issue of outsourcing.

It would be similar, to Mayor Daley razing Meigs Field, using security as a reason, even though he has no problem with ORD or MDW, the real issue being he wanted another park. So let us not veil the real issue with outsourcing as security or quality, since both are probably equal to levels in the US, it should be, that outsourcing is simply bad for the american worker and hence bad for America.

As for this remark: "Just because they have not killed anyone yet should not make you feel safe". As is probably known by most here, I work for the company in a flying position and I can only say, that I feel very safe everytime I fly or ride on a jetblue airplane. I think the organization is topnotch, I have never once seen, felt or suspected, that safety is not the number one priority of all that are employed here.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I'm still waiting to hear WHY arbii does'nt construct the 319/320 to dump fuel ??

Does the 300.......the 318....the 321.......the 330.....the 340....... ??

What about Boeing ???


thanx

NH/BB's

PS,
(ALMOST FORGOT)

GREAT JOB, EVERY CREW MEMBER !!

 

[Dizel8]

NHBB,

The narrow bodied aircrafts, Boeing 717, 7373, MD-80, DC-9, A-318-320, and I believe 321 does not have capability to dump fuel.

On the 320 series, one is allowed to land at max takeoff weight, should an immediate return be needed and if max landing weight is exceeded, an over weight landing inspection is required.

The reason for the 2+ hours circling was not so much a neccesity, as it was to reduce the weight and hence the potential stress on the nosewheel.

 

[runway4]

Engine fire causing damage to the wing. Airbus has been doing the repairs.

[post="304227"][/post]​

Oh, that's right... the infamous Gate 1 incident... a/c is still offline, eh?

 

[DCD]

I'm still waiting to hear WHY arbii does'nt construct the 319/320 to dump fuel ??

Does the 300.......the 318....the 321.......the 330.....the 340....... ??

What about Boeing ???
thanx

NH/BB's

PS,
(ALMOST FORGOT)

GREAT JOB, EVERY CREW MEMBER !!

[post="304274"][/post]​

Even USAIRWAYS A330-300's don't have the ability to dump fuel.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

I read that the pax were moved to the rear to lighten the nose.

Was any fuel also moved to the rear or outboard tanks? Does the A320 have a CGCC?
Would the CGCC move fuel forward to compensate for pax moving to the rear? Does it have a manual override to move fuel to the rear to lighten the nose? If it does, does it protect the aircraft from being out of cg limits to maintain control?