DescentBB

For those of you who are interested in this type of thing.

Remember last week, a JetBlue A-320 had that landing incident at LAX. Well, here are the pics of the nose wheel and gear after the fact.

Thought I would share. Thanks to Iceman for hosting the pics.

Dedman wrote:For those of you who are interested in this type of thing.

Remember last week, a JetBlue A-320 had that landing incident at LAX. Well, here are the pics of the nose wheel and gear after the fact.

Thought I would share. Thanks to Iceman for hosting the pics.

I watched this live on TV. It was amazing.

yeah me too, it was scary.

imagine to people on board, they had satellite TV and they were watching thier own possible demise.

Nice sanding work.

But as for lapping? Not a very good result!

That will trash your rims fast.

I find it unreal that the rims came out that well.

Iceman wrote:I find it unreal that the rims came out that well.

I find it amazing that the strut did not collapse. The pilot really had his act to geather on the landing the way he gently eased the front weight down onto the tire.

Amazing.

So how did the wheel get turned around in the first place? Does the front landing gear actually rotate before it gets raised back up into the plane? I thought they just went straight back up.

Maybe a gazillion pounds of force?

dissent wrote:So how did the wheel get turned around in the first place? Does the front landing gear actually rotate before it gets raised back up into the plane? I thought they just went straight back up.

I believe that the preliminary finding is that is was a failed o-ring. It is a known problem with that aircraft.

steering may have went haywire..

dissent wrote:So how did the wheel get turned around in the first place? Does the front landing gear actually rotate before it gets raised back up into the plane? I thought they just went straight back up.

yes, the A-320 rotates the front wheels 90 deg. before it retracts the entire gear into the bay. the wheels did not rotate the full 90 deg. and thus the gear could not safely retract into the wheel well.

Ferno wrote:steering may have went haywire..

read above....

I've noticed that Airbus ariplanes are very poor in quality and have been the subject of mechanical failiures for several years now. So to see a A-320 in trouble does not surprise me.

Actually, it would be quite unlikely for the nose gear to collapse under these circumstances. The result you saw is common in these occurences. Kudos to the pilot for a nice smooth landing. Although, physics helped a lot. If it had been either of the main gear, the landing would have increased in difficulty.

The worst part of the whole thing was listening to that idiot Sean Hannity asking the same questions over and over again, even when each expert he spoke with told him the exact same thing each time.

Ferno wrote:steering may have went haywire..

Ummm...no. The pilot kept the front wheel exactly on the center line of the landing strip.

you missed the point Woody.

I meant the nosewheel steering went haywire.


found something on it here

...during landing gear extension, the brake and steering control unit (BSCU) would have been energized and hydraulic pressure would have been directed toward the steering servo valve. The BSCU would have then commanded a small rotation of the nose wheel to check for proper movement. Any disagreement between the commanded position and actual position of the nose wheel would have deactivated the nose wheel steering. However, if hydraulic pressure had bypassed the steering control valve, there would have been continued pressurization to the servo valve, and because of the servo valve's inherent offset, in-flight rotation of the nose wheels.

Ah, yes. The pilot was actually steering the plane by rudder and brakes as the nose gear was obviously fubar.
Sorry for misconstruing.

Iceman wrote:Maybe a gazillion pounds of force?

is that anything like "3 brazillion soldiers"?
btw...try sayin' that fast 5x

for some reason i cant view the pics...... its taking a very long time for them to load ??

i guess he doesnt like me

AceCombat wrote:yes, the A-320 rotates the front wheels 90 deg. before it retracts the entire gear into the bay. the wheels did not rotate the full 90 deg. and thus the gear could not safely retract into the wheel well.

Sounds like a bogus design to me, if an o-ring failure can lead to what might have been a much uglier outcome here. Any other planes do this too? Think I'll avoid flying on A-320's in the interim.

O-ring failure - hmmm....now where have I heard that before...

dissent wrote:O-ring failure - hmmm....now where have I heard that before...

i wonder..............

Challenger.

However, it's a more complex subject than that. Morton Thiokol always asserted the O-Rings were not qualified for shuttle launches at the very cold temperatures Nasa had been sending shuttles up in..

Nasa was aware of the o-ring "blow by" for several years, but it was not seen as a Flight Safety Issue!

Mobius wrote:Challenger.

there is another time..... its very famous, has its own movie and is much older than challanger

"Airplane!"?

APOLLO 13

Apollo 13 wasn't an O-ring failure, Ace. The heater thermostatic switches in one of the oxygen tanks in the service module were overlooked in a refitting; while the rest of the tank's components were upgraded to run on 65 volts, the switches were overlooked and were designed to function on 28 volts. A problem emptying the tank during pre-flight testing resulted in the decision to heat the tanks for 8 hours at 65 volts. Since the thermostat switches weren't rated for this voltage, they melted and fused shut, causing the temperature to rise to around 1000 degrees. (This wasn't detected by temperature sensors, since they were only designed to detect up to 80 degrees.) The heat damaged the insulation on fan wires inside the tank. During the cryo-stir, the exposed wiring shorted and started a fire in the pure oxygen environment; the increased pressure caused the oxygen tank to explode. Here's a link with full details and a chronlology of the events.

wow, i never knew that. thanx


but just for reference, O-ring failure was the preliminary cause.

dissent wrote:Sounds like a bogus design to me, if an o-ring failure can lead to what might have been a much uglier outcome here. Any other planes do this too? Think I'll avoid flying on A-320's in the interim.

Oh come on, as if you're in a position to state what a good and bad design is on landing gear. We have no idea why it rotates, it may have been a design decision to avoid a much more costly failure.

I think retractable wheels is a bad design, we'd never have this problem if the wheels just stuck out in the same position the whole time. And what's with the freakin' wings? All curved and symmetrical and ★■◆●. We could add a third wing, then planes would never crash, the other two would just keep on ticking. And it would look like that ship in Star Wars!

Give me a break.

Topher wrote:

dissent wrote:Sounds like a bogus design to me, if an o-ring failure can lead to what might have been a much uglier outcome here. Any other planes do this too? Think I'll avoid flying on A-320's in the interim.

Oh come on, as if you're in a position to state what a good and bad design is on landing gear. We have no idea why it rotates, it may have been a design decision to avoid a much more costly failure.

I think retractable wheels is a bad design, we'd never have this problem if the wheels just stuck out in the same position the whole time. And what's with the freakin' wings? All curved and symmetrical and ****. We could add a third wing, then planes would never crash, the other two would just keep on ticking. And it would look like that ship in Star Wars!

Give me a break.

You two are funny

heh, yeah lets see.... fixed wheels...... much slower speeds, more time in the air smelling everyones body and odors the entire time, plus the fat man who has excessive gas......WOOF!!..... not to mention that lady with the horrible perfume. the screaming babies and the occasional defiant passenger. then we got the chatterbox person next to you...............



i think ill stick to the planes with retractable gear with possible failures.



and why cant i get the pictures to load......... 3 different browsers..... all time out!

Mmmmm... Babies.

Mobius wrote:Challenger.

Thank you master of the obvious!

Babies on airplanes don't bother me since I have one of my own now. That happen to any other parents?

Dedman wrote:Babies on airplanes don't bother me since I have one of my own now. That happen to any other parents?

Haven't been on a plane with her yet, but in other public situations I'm far more tolerant.