Jetblue Flt 292 Bur-jfk Diverted To Lgb

[A330US]

Great job by pilot of landing the aircraft, and thank god everyone is alright, at US we got lots 320s as well, but neve had a problem like that, probably due to outsourcing to El salvador ?

 

[luvn737s]

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?

[post="304008"][/post]​

No, it's design not to retract if it goes 90 degrees. The NTSB report on the HP Airbus incident in CMH in 1999 blamed a crushed o-ring which allowed hydraulic fluid to pressurize one side of the steering rack and trapped it at 3000 psi.

I wouldn't take anything away from the great job the JBlue pilots did in keeping it straight and more importantly keeping people from unnecessarily evacuating through slides.

BUT, I would perhaps recommend the next time this happens to cut off the hydraulic system pressure to the entire gear system (green system) and see if the aerodynamic forces straighten the gear. Pilots are trained to land without the green system, but they're not trained to land with the nose gear hard over.

 

[Blue Dude]

BUT, I would perhaps recommend the next time this happens to cut off the hydraulic system pressure to the entire gear system (green system) and see if the aerodynamic forces straighten the gear. Pilots are trained to land without the green system, but they're not trained to land with the nose gear hard over.

[post="304430"][/post]​

Even if pressure was removed, the airflow would hold the wheel blown to the 90 degree point. Depressurizing the system wouldn't help, since there's no way to overcome air pressure to realign the wheel. Staying at 90 degrees is actually a good thing, since there's no tendency to turn the aircraft when the nose contacts the runway. If for some reason your ad hoc procedure was only partially successful, you've only made the problem worse, since the aircraft would probably depart the runway. There's no guarantee you'd have a free castering nose wheel in this condition, or that the nose wheel would center up before the pilot regains control after the swerve (if he can with no nose wheel steering). As it happens, nobody was hurt and there's minimal damage. I can't say the same would result if the aircraft left the runway.

 

[Dizel8]

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?

[post="304401"][/post]​

On the A-320 fuel is located in two cells in the wing, innner and outer portion and a center fuel tank in the fuselage between the wings, so no possibilities of moving fuel fore and aft.

 

[Dizel8]

Great job by pilot of landing the aircraft, and thank god everyone is alright, at US we got lots 320s as well, but neve had a problem like that, probably due to outsourcing to El salvador ?

[post="304403"][/post]​

AWA and UAL have had the same problem, not sure who did mx on those aircraft, but perhaps some one else knows. As for this incicedence, an investigation is being done as to the cause, so perhaps it would be appropiate to await the results before casting blame.

 

[Hope777]

Thinking of a possible cause, could it be possible that whom ever pushed back the aircraft, EXCEEDED the 90degrees thus causing a problem soon after?

 

[Broke@SFO]

AWA and UAL have had the same problem, not sure who did mx on those aircraft, but perhaps some one else knows. As for this incicedence, an investigation is being done as to the cause, so perhaps it would be appropiate to await the results before casting blame.

[post="304490"][/post]​

UAL has never done any heavy maintenance on the "ScareBus" fleet. It was being done by 3rd party Timco in Mobile Alabama by un-licensed John Deere tractor mechs. After this incident (nose wheel turned 90 at landing) in 2002 and many others, United has terminated thier contract and now is sending all the fleet to Air Canada. Air Canada is sending thier engines to UAL for overhaul in SFO.

 

[luvn737s]

Even if pressure was removed, the airflow would hold the wheel blown to the 90 degree point. Depressurizing the system wouldn't help, since there's no way to overcome air pressure to realign the wheel. Staying at 90 degrees is actually a good thing, since there's no tendency to turn the aircraft when the nose contacts the runway. If for some reason your ad hoc procedure was only partially successful, you've only made the problem worse, since the aircraft would probably depart the runway. There's no guarantee you'd have a free castering nose wheel in this condition, or that the nose wheel would center up before the pilot regains control after the swerve (if he can with no nose wheel steering). As it happens, nobody was hurt and there's minimal damage. I can't say the same would result if the aircraft left the runway.

[post="304435"][/post]​

Since we're talking about things that aren't supposed to happen, we're in the realm of the unknown. I would assume that if you depressurized the system and it didn't return to a centered position (which the centering cam would try to do) then when you repressurized the system it would return to the 90 deg position it was in before. And since there is no procedure for landing with the gear hard-over, landing in this condition is just as ad-hoc as anything else.

The Jblu and AWA incidents differ substantially in that the gear went up and down on the HP plane and wouldn't retract on the JBlu one, so the symptoms may be the same, but the root causes very different.

 

[mrfish3726]

One note here, if you view the UAL photo you can see that the pilot landed to the left of center line that's why the wheel hubs were only ground to the bearing cup. If you view the film of the Jet Blue aircraft you can see the pilot ran right down the center line and took out every runway light on the center line after nose wheel touch down. I haven't seen a real close up picture yet, but in the video it appeared that the JB strut was worn down to the axels.

 

[mga707]

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

If true, that would only have vacated rows 1 and 2, and 4 seats in row 3, as there were 140 passengers on board and 156 seats.
Would it have really made any difference?

 

[WNrforlife]

The feds should ground the entire A320 fleet and get to the bottom of all of these nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed :angry: :angry:

 

[bluetoad]

The feds should ground the entire A320 fleet and get to the bottom of all of these nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed :angry: :angry:

[post="305603"][/post]​

How many people have died in 737's this year? Better ground the fleet!!

 

[insp89]

The feds should ground the entire A320 fleet and get to the bottom of all of these nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed :angry: :angry:

[post="305603"][/post]​

What a "PATHETIC" SELF-SERVING post !! :down: :down:

 

[runway4]

Ground the 320? Can you say "hard-over rudder?"

Pathetic is the correct word... somebody's got their panties in a bunch about B6, period.

 

[Dizel8]

The feds should ground the entire A320 fleet and get to the bottom of all of these nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed :angry:  :angry:

[post="305603"][/post]​

WNforlife that about says it all, no hidden agenda there. Maybe ground the 73's because they are "hard" to slow down, they experience ruddder hard overs or they suffer center fuel tank explosions?