A320 with gear problem over LA

Montblack wrote:

Any thoughts? His end? My end?

His end somehow. I get the same thing using Mozilla Thunderbird as a reader.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:

Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
screen after the plane slid to a stop? It seemed close to a full minute,
although my memory could be faulty -- maybe it was 30 seconds. Either
way, what happened to the "trucks chasing the plane down the runway?"
Shoot, it looked like they had enough equipment there to place a fire
truck every 200 feet on that 12,000 foot runway.

Yeah. That was odd. Maybe there's a spped limit for ground vehicles. :-)
As well, has anyone yet explained here why they used so much runway on the
roll out? The news feed I saw had a comment that they stopped with under
1000' to go. Were they just using thrust reversers for most of the rollout
for some reason?

moo

("Bucky" wrote)
It's because he's using a tab at the beginning of each paragraph, like
he's writing a paper or something. =) Your reader is smart enough to
remove the whitespace when quoting it.


In the mid 90's, I used to put two spaces at the end of each sentence - like
I was taught in my 1976 typing class (Using our new IBM Selectrics).
However, that practice was goofing up some Word/Word Perfect-type program -
maybe it was the old Outlook Express that couldn't handle it. Whatever it
was, it would display a new line where that second 'space' had been
'tapped.'

I liked two spaces at the end of each sentence - there was a certain rhythm
to it when typing. Oh well, time marches on.


Montblack

has anyone yet explained here why they used so much runway on the
roll out? The news feed I saw had a comment that they stopped with
under
1000' to go. Were they just using thrust reversers for most of the
rollout
for some reason?

The pilot used up more runway because he wanted to hold the nosewheel
off as long as possible. I doubt the reversers were used at all, as
that would transfer weight forward and bring the nose down faster.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
I liked two spaces at the end of each sentence - there was a certain
rhythm
to it when typing. Oh well, time marches on.

IMHO, it's a font thing.

I use two spaces when typing a plain text or fixed-width font document. I
use one space for text that's formatted with a proportional-width font. (If
someone winds up displaying my two-space, plain text typing in a
proportional-width font, that's their problem ).

Of course, like you I do sometimes accidently hit two spaces when I meant to
hit one. There is, as you say, a rhythm your fingers seem to remember. On
the bright side, I never have run into any program misinterpreting two
spaces as a line break.

Pete

wrote in message
oups.com...
The pilot used up more runway because he wanted to hold the nosewheel
off as long as possible. I doubt the reversers were used at all, as
that would transfer weight forward and bring the nose down faster.

That makes very little sense. That is, it's true that reverse thrust below
the CG would make it harder to keep the nosewheel off the pavement. But as
is easily seen in the video coverage, the nose was already on the pavement
for a great portion of the landing "slide".

So it seems to me that shortening the slide would have been at least as
important a priority. That way, you're less likely to run off the end of
the runway (and with only 1000', that was apparently a real possibility),
and you chew up less of the runway.

Was the pilot actually quoted as saying that the reason he used so much
runway was "because he wanted to hold the nosewheel off as long as
possible"? Or is that just your assumption?

Pete

Jay Honeck wrote:

Yeah, we were all talking the same thing. I sure as heck wouldn't have
walked under the nose of that plane -- and I didn't see any jack.

The nose gear didn't collapse. If anything of this non-event is
surprizing, then it's the fact that the nose gear didn't collapse.

Can you imagine being on that plane? I'll bet everyone was standing up
immediately after stopping, clamoring to get off, pronto!

I'm sure you would have done so. However I guess the dumb passengers,
not being spam can rated, thought the captain knew what he was doing and
that it was best to follow his instructions.

Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
screen after the plane slid to a stop?

Yeah, I'm sure all those professional fire fighters had no clue. Maybe
Ed Fagan will find a passenger who will agree to sue them. I have no
idea for what, but you could help them to find a reason.

Stefan

Let the nose down too soon and skid the nose gear farther and faster.
Hold it up too long, stall the elevator and drop the nose slower but
harder.
Use thrust reversers or not? Keep hands on the stick and feet on the
brakes?
How does all of this happen in the highly automated Airbus cockpit?

It seems that the pilot would want to treat the nose gear like he was
walking on eggs. Take it as easy as possible. Adding operations like
cycling the thrust reversers may add too many unknowns to the situation
and may add load to the nose gear. Maybe they keep it as simple as
possible, even if that means running over. He had to be ready to react
as quickly as possible using any means available if halfway down the
runway the nose gear might dig in and jerk the nose to the side. He
would fight what ever happened until as metioned above, the pilot
finally became a passsenger...

It was amazing to watch as the tires ground away, burned, burst open,
peeled off, and then the lower half of the wheel and part of the axle
were ground down.

James

That makes very little sense

It made perfect sense to me - In that situation, not knowing how the
nosegear would react upon contact with the runway, I assume the pilot
wanted to delay nosewheel touchdown to the lowest airspeed possible,
hence "holding it off". IIRC the landing runway was 25R which is
12,091ft. long. The fact that they stopped with 1000ft. remaining
suggests to me that no reversers or wheel brakes were used. Then again,
the rolling resistance from the nosewheels being ground down was
probably pretty high : )

Or is that just your assumption?

Roger that

This isn't the first time the A320 had this problem so the simulators
might have flown this configuration about a gazillion times so procedure
should be well understood.

"jbaloun" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let the nose down too soon and skid the nose gear farther and faster.
Hold it up too long, stall the elevator and drop the nose slower but
harder.
Use thrust reversers or not? Keep hands on the stick and feet on the
brakes?
How does all of this happen in the highly automated Airbus cockpit?

It seems that the pilot would want to treat the nose gear like he was
walking on eggs. Take it as easy as possible. Adding operations like
cycling the thrust reversers may add too many unknowns to the
situation
and may add load to the nose gear. Maybe they keep it as simple as
possible, even if that means running over. He had to be ready to react
as quickly as possible using any means available if halfway down the
runway the nose gear might dig in and jerk the nose to the side. He
would fight what ever happened until as metioned above, the pilot
finally became a passsenger...

It was amazing to watch as the tires ground away, burned, burst open,
peeled off, and then the lower half of the wheel and part of the axle
were ground down.

James