JetBlue 292

[Pigfish]

:o :up: What a smooooth landing. Hats off to the pilot.

[Kresge]

Man! I was on the edge of my seat waiting for teh landing, thinking of all those people on there. Can you imagine sitting there oin an airplane seat knowing that you are about to possibly crash land and having to wait a few hours in that state of mind?! I'm glad everyone made it, that was a risky landing and it came off smoothly!

:up:

[Iceman]

Smoooooth as a baby's butt. :up:

[August]

Man! I was on the edge of my seat waiting for the landing, thinking of all those people on there. Can you imagine sitting there oin an airplane seat knowing that you are about to possibly crash land and having to wait a few hours in that state of mind?! I'm glad everyone made it, that was a risky landing and it came off smoothly!

:up:

Not only that but the plane was equipped with LCD sreens in the seatbacks with satellite feed. The passengers were able to watch the same live coverage on the major news networks the rest of us did right up until a few minutes before landing.

A good lesson for media people to tone down the sensational reporting since the victims just might be watching.

[Pigfish]

I had just come home from work, turned on the TV, and CNN was giving live coverage. Got to thinking this was kinda strange, or creepy, as I could not recall seeing such a potential disaster LIVE in such detail. Media coverage to the extreme.

Gave me what the '911' feeling must have been like (I didnt see it live) and not sure if I liked that feeling... :hmm:

[Abraham]

Not just the pilots were exceptional, also the structure of the plane, especisally the undercarriage. I bet this was never considered in the design stage of the undercarriage and things could have gone totally wrong...

[diver]

Gave me what the '911' feeling must have been like (I didnt see it live) and not sure if I liked that feeling...


That still gives me the creeps, I remember i was watching and one minute there were the two buildings on fire, then the news coverage cut to the pentagon IIRC, when they came back somebody said to me that it looks as if one of the buildings has collapsed, i said "no way its gotta be just the camera angle", but of course one of the buildings had gone down.
I will never forget that moment.


Back to the topic at hand and brilliant work by the flight crew.

[JamesT73J]

Not just the pilots were exceptional, also the structure of the plane, especisally the undercarriage. I bet this was never considered in the design stage of the undercarriage and things could have gone totally wrong...

Believe it or not, it's not only considered, it's catered for. An off-centred, stuck nosewheel isn't unknown, and there is a procedure for it. Well done to the crew for getting it all right.

[tycho102]

Can you imagine sitting there oin an airplane seat knowing that you are about to possibly crash land and having to wait a few hours in that state of mind?!

Oh, no. The plane was never going to "crash".

The most important thing to remember on this issue is the nose gear was down and locked. A very stark difference from down and unlocked. One of the old tricks to retractable gear is the "slap-down". There have been many instances over the years where, because of electrical or hydraulic failure, the nose gear would drop due to gravity as per it's design, but the airstream wouldn't quite allow it to lock down. Pilots would have to set the main gear down, hard, to slap the nose gear into locked position. Many times taking more than one pass to do it, literally boucing on the runway while managing to keep the nose in the air.

So this little jewel was locked, and that changes the whole emergency. The pilot still did an outstanding job, reeling back on the elevators until the nose settled onto the runway gently. It was an emergency, but relatively minor emergency. Remember that DC-10 that lost all hydraulic power, and had to use differential thrust to do turns? That was a hardcore emergency.

I'm not sure why the passengers where not informed, however. I can understand "preventing a panic", but *something* should have been said before they started hearing about it on the TV's.

[Abraham]

Not just the pilots were exceptional, also the structure of the plane, especisally the undercarriage. I bet this was never considered in the design stage of the undercarriage and things could have gone totally wrong...

Believe it or not, it's not only considered, it's catered for. An off-centred, stuck nosewheel isn't unknown, and there is a procedure for it. Well done to the crew for getting it all right.
Thanks for the info!
You're probably right...
:up:

[StdDev]

Now... isnt it time for some "Jet Blue Jokes" to relieve the tension created during the emergency?
Perhaps something about Jet Blues new 4 hour non-stop from Burbank to LAX... (badum bump)...

Seriously it was handled well and I am pleased it came out as it did

[Type941]

The pilots acted well and professionaly, did what they are taught to do. It's so nice in a modern sh*tty world where noone wants to take responsibilities, to know that there are still people who do their job well, know that they can't make a mistake and that you can rely on them in the hour of need. Big applause to the pilots and the flight attendants. That plane landed on that white line so perfectly, it was awesome. They deserve every cent they get paid. hats off. :up:

And yes, the airbus and many modern planes are build not only to withstand a collision like a collapsed front pillar of the wheelgear, but also they are built to withstand a full belly landing, which is obviously a much more dramatic and dangerous procedure.

[Kapitan]

well nice landing but could have been a disaster glad it wasnt

[SUBMAN1]

Yep, been through that myself in my fathers airplane once. The gear was having problems retracting and the reason was that the wheel was cocked like this (The steering cables broke on take off). All you can think upon landing is that you are going to cartwheel when the nose gear touches down. So, you just keep off the front wheel as long as possible before touching it down on the pavement, using the airframe to slow the speed.

Unlike this aircraft however, when we touched the front wheel onto the pavement, it wobbled back into position, unfortunately with no control, but it could have been worse. And unlike this aircraft, we managed to taxi off the runway anyway, steering via left or right throttle control and allowing the engines to pull us as well as using individual toe brakes as a sort of improvised control scheme.

Just my thoughts on Jet Blue - I think the pilot did well on this one. Straight as an arrow using only rudder control. I did think he got on that nose gear a bit too soon though, but of course, he is the pilot.

-S

[tycho102]

I did think he got on that nose gear a bit too soon though, but of course, he is the pilot.

No, because he's got to minimize the force on it. If he had waited until he stalled out, the plane would've dropped extra force on it, making it more likely to collapse. And that's the same reason he rolled out, rather than braking hard. If he'd laid in with brakes and reversers, he's definately have caved the nose in. As it is, he used minimal brakes to make sure he shut down on the runway, rather than the overbound grass. It definately would've sunk in and snapped.

That the nose strut didn't snap on the runway does show good design. They'll have to replace that strut, and xray the airframe for stress, but that's about it. The engines probably didn't pickup any FOD, and the flaps probably didn't catch all that much junk.

[XabbaRus]

I thought it was amazing and noticed how he kept the whole thing centred.

Did anyone notice how the whole wheel unit had melted away and that it was just the stump from the axle housing up.

Amazing.

[SUBMAN1]

I did think he got on that nose gear a bit too soon though, but of course, he is the pilot.

No, because he's got to minimize the force on it. If he had waited until he stalled out, the plane would've dropped extra force on it, making it more likely to collapse. And that's the same reason he rolled out, rather than braking hard. If he'd laid in with brakes and reversers, he's definately have caved the nose in. As it is, he used minimal brakes to make sure he shut down on the runway, rather than the overbound grass. It definately would've sunk in and snapped.

That the nose strut didn't snap on the runway does show good design. They'll have to replace that strut, and xray the airframe for stress, but that's about it. The engines probably didn't pickup any FOD, and the flaps probably didn't catch all that much junk.

I understand the reasoning behind doing what they did, but I still think that they could have stayed off it much longer and still maintained nose drop.

[SUBMAN1]

By the way, I wonder if this will end up being a software fault? Airbus is notorious for having computer problems with their aircraft. The A320 actually holds the record for most problems and faults with a new airframe design - one reason I won't fly Airbus at all.

-S

[JamesT73J]

Airbus is notorious for having computer problems with their aircraft. The A320 actually holds the record for most problems and faults with a new airframe design - one reason I won't fly Airbus at all.

-S

It's not software. Last time this happened, it was caused by an extruded O-ring in the nosewheel-steering hydraulic assembly.

The 'computer problems' mantra is a rather irritating persistent myth surrounding Airbus. The A320 is a peerless aircraft, you should give it a try; I'm positive you'll be impressed.

[XabbaRus]

Airbus are just find.

I have flown on them more times than I care to remember and I am still alive :)

Also flown in a Tu-141 and Il-62

[Kapitan]

i prefer airbus over boeing any day airbus are unique there also the only fully manafactured aircraft to have a proper fly by wire capibility there very reliable.

if you note the sources that say everything against them please not its bias as the source is american if the source was canadian or non european non american then it be unbias

air canada b.a luthansa air france monarch and hundreds of other have had very few problems infact the 747 has more problems than the first airbuses

as for safety the A310 is the best :rock:

airbus rules :rock:

[Torpedo Fodder]

The A320 is a peerless aircraft, you should give it a try; I'm positive you'll be impressed.

Peerless? What about the 737NG (New Generation) series (600-900), which have been consistantly outselling their A32x counterparts?

[Kapitan]

try going on a boeing in air canada they havnt got none they were boeing fanatics at one time now there fleet only consists of airbus

air india has airbuses ba lufthansa air france even american airline have airbuses

[Torpedo Fodder]

try going on a boeing in air canada they havnt got none they were boeing fanatics at one time now there fleet only consists of airbus

Nope, they still have 32 767s in service. They were going to buy 18 777s and 14 787s this year right after they got out of bankruptcy, but that deal fell through due to rejection by it's pilot's union, who claimed the purchace would violate the cost-saving agreement Air Canada had made after it filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Now that Air Canada is re-negotiating the deal with it's pilots, the sale may yet be revived.

air india has airbuses ba lufthansa air france even american airline have airbuses

Air France, Air India and Lufthansa have plenty of Boeings in their fleets as well.

[Kapitan]

nevery heard of a boeing in air france fleet nor luthansa apart from thier 747's

i doubt air canada will keep them 767's the bigger 330 is more cost effective plus last time i hear they had more airbus than boeing aircraft

[Torpedo Fodder]

nevery heard of a boeing in air france fleet nor luthansa apart from thier 747's

Air France's inventory is over 1/3 Boeing. As of August 2005 their Boeing fleet consisted of:

14 Boeing 737-500
6 Boeing 747-200
2 Boeing 747-300
16 Boeing 747-400
9 Boeing 747-200F
4 Boeing 747-400ERF
25 Boeing 777-200
10 Boeing 777-300

In addition to their 30 747s, Lufthansa operates over 60 737s.

i doubt air canada will keep them 767's the bigger 330 is more cost effective plus last time i hear they had more airbus than boeing aircraft

They have to keep them in service because for all practical purposes they can't buy any new aircraft at the moment, so they need every airframe they have. They were planning to replace the 767s with 777s and 787s, but that sale was scrubbed due to an agreement with their pilots over keeping operating costs down but it could be back on after that agreement is renegiated next month.

[Kapitan]

thats some thing i didnt know i suppose you could call it a tie because every major airline does have both airbus and boeing in thier fleets

so i say its a tie otherwise we be hear forever and a month argueeing a pointless point

[Takeda Shingen]

so i say its a tie otherwise we be hear forever and a month argueeing a pointless point

As opposed to the Airbus vs. Boeing poll, which is both enlightening and objective.

[Spectator]

Remember that DC-10 that lost all hydraulic power, and had to use differential thrust to do turns? That was a hardcore emergency.


yeah that was united 232 in the late 80's (89 iirc). after the crash (more than a hundred people died :( but also nearly 200 survived) there were some simulator tests where other pilots had to try landing a dc-10 under the same circumstances. not a single attempt was nearly as successful as the real landing was.


some time after the crash the reason for the (rear-)engine loss, which destroyed all the hydraulics was found. there was a small hole in the engine's rotor blade (not bigger than a grain of sand).

[donut]

My retirement,Boeing 727 still flying after 40 years says it all.I buy American :sunny: