A320 with gear problem over LA

Jetblue corporate and flight departments are more than pleased. Jetblue
maintenance and Airbus engineering are going to have a Real Bad Day(tm)
tomorrow.

Jim


Awesome job. A soft and smooth as you could hope for. JetBlue has to be
more
than pleased with the outcome of this.
--

On 9/21/05 10:01 PM, in article , "RST
Engineering" wrote:

Jetblue corporate and flight departments are more than pleased. Jetblue
maintenance and Airbus engineering are going to have a Real Bad Day(tm)
tomorrow.

Jim


Awesome job. A soft and smooth as you could hope for. JetBlue has to be
more
than pleased with the outcome of this.
--



I hope they keep in mind that it could have been much worse.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:CcoYe.261456$E95.207187@fed1read01...
wrote in message
oups.com...
"I just want to let you know.....We're all counting on you."

"Surely you must be joking..."


"It's no joke, and don't call me Shirley..."

I don't understand why they couldn't have sent two guys with sticks out
on the runway in their Jeep. It worked earlier in the week.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...
[...] Dumping fuel is the easiest way to quickly reduce weight...

And a heck of a lot less politically problematic than dumping passengers...

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
[...] Dumping fuel is the easiest way to quickly reduce weight...
And a heck of a lot less politically problematic than dumping passengers...

yet, may be not as environmentally friendly...

--Sylvain

"RST Engineering" wrote:

Jetblue corporate and flight departments are more than pleased. Jetblue
maintenance and Airbus engineering are going to have a Real Bad Day(tm)
tomorrow.


Yes, especially as this is the fifth time (at least) that an A320 has
landed with the nose gear aligned approximately 90 degrees to the
aircraft's longitudinal axis. The fourth such incident occurred in
Columbus, OH on February 16, 1999. Four months prior to that
incident, Airbus Industrie issued a service bulletin that recommended
replacement of the external seals on the steering control module's
selector valve on A320 and A321 airplanes. The SB compliance window
was 18 months. The aircraft in the Columbus, OH incident had not yet
had the SB performed and, yes, it was the SB targeted seals that
failed.

On March 24, 1999, about one month after the Columbus, OH incident,
the DGAC (the French "FAA") issued an Airworthiness Directive to
require compliance with the Airbus Industrie SB. On December 17,
1999, the FAA issued AD 99-23-09 which was based upon the French AD,
with a 12 month time of compliance for modification of the nose wheel
steering control valve.

Read all about it in this 1999 NTSB accident report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...05X00227&key=1

Full Narrative PDF file he

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?...99IA062&rpt=fa


- -- IYNH -- -

("Kev" wrote)
[snip]
Some mention of the fact that the pilot pretty much kept the airliner
on the centerline... which of course probably doesn't please LAX's
runway maintenance guy grin, who might have to repaint it.


Speaking of maintenance guys ..we came in late to the footage, but saw
people deplaning - LIVE. Did anyone put a jack under the nose of that jet?
All I saw was the truck with the steps.

I was pointing at the TV saying. "Don't walk under the plane people."

They weren't listening to me. At one point I counted 10 people under the
plane's nose, milling about.

By now I'm getting agitated, "Levees break people!!" I couldn't watch
anymore. Please tell me they put a jack under the front of that plane, and I
missed that part of the coverage.

Hey, while I'm at it ...it's LAX people AND you've had hours to plan. One
truck with stairs? It's LAX - all exits open, get those people off the plane
and get that plane off the runway ...NOW!!

You'll probably hear the excuse that they were waiting for the feds, which
"technically" they are. g


Montblack

Kev wrote:

Anyone know why the A320 is designed that way?

Most airplanes cannot dump fuel. Only very few, mostly long range types,
can. The point is, there is no need for that feature if they can land at
MTOW.

Stefan

Kyle Boatright wrote:

Sure. If the aircraft loses an engine immediately following takeoff, it
still needs to meet minimum climb performance standards

Which is the reason why usually two engine planes have much better climb
performance than four engine ones.

Stefan