A320 with gear problem over LA

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.

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

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

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

"sfb" wrote in message
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.

Airbus' simulators don't have this malfunction programmed.

D.

Hmmm, the Airbus Simulator that I fly does.

BJ

Capt.Doug wrote:

"sfb" wrote in message
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.


Airbus' simulators don't have this malfunction programmed.

D.

"jbaloun" wrote in message
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.

Hadn't thought of that. With the exception of going off the end. What's at
the end of that runway? Is there a soft field landing technique for
airliners?

moo

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

....about those pesky thrust reversers....

From an NTSB incident report dated 02/16/1999 concerning a similar A320
[America West, N628AW] event at KCMH:

"...the control tower performed a visual check of the landing gear, which
revealed that the nosewheels were rotated about 90 degrees."

"...the flight crew received indications of dual landing gear control and
interface unit (LCGIU) faults."

"The flight crew then prepared for a landing at CMH, with nosewheel steering
and thrust reversers inoperative due to the faults."

So it would appear the pilot had no thrust reversers to use. This airplane
came to a stop 2,500 feet from the end of KCMH's 10,250 runway. On a final
note, the incident on 9/21/05 was the fifth of its kind.

wrote:
I doubt the reversers were used at all

I couldn't tell that the thrust reversers were being used in the video.
But then again, I don't know what kind of thrust reversers are on the
A320 and exactly what they look like.