Airbus Admits Problem on 320!

heywatchthis

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Posts
199
Total Time
6000+
Airbus admits undercarriage problems on A320 series
09.25.2005, 07:08 AM



PARIS (AFX) - Airbus acknowledged previous jammed nose wheel incidents similar to the one which caused a spectacular emergency landing in the US earlier this week.

'These incidents all ended without a problem and we must await the end of the inquiry to know what really caused this one and if the causes are the same,' an Airbus spokeswoman said.

She was responding to a report from the US Federal Aviation Administration following the emergency landing of an Airbus A320 at Los Angeles airport with the nose wheels jammed at right angles to the fuselage.

Incidents involving nose wheels had occurred with an American West A320 in February 1999, a JetBlue A320 on Nov 1, 2002 and a United Airlines A319 -- a smaller version of the Airbus model -- on Nov 21, 2002, the FAA said Friday.

No one was injured in any of the incidents.

The New York Times reported Friday, citing FAA officials, that Wednesday's incident, again involving a JetBlue A320, marked at least the seventh time the Airbus has had problems with its nose wheels.

The French Airline Pilots' Association for its part said there had been six such incidents before 2000.

On Wednesday, the nose landing gear on JetBlue flight 292 became jammed at a 90 degree angle and failed to retract following takeoff from Burbank airport in the Los Angeles area.

With the plight of the plane carried live on national television -- and watched by the 140 passengers on seatback screens -- the crew dumped fuel and landed spectacularly but safely.
 

GravityHater

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
1,168
Total Time
3000
On one of those blog-things one of the pilots was saying that this particular gear had 'just been signed off' after a previous problem?
 

yaks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
164
Total Time
8000+
No surprises here. Airbus also hid the A300 rudder problems for 2+ years until AA 587 crashed and they are still denying any culpability.
 

Crossky

A Gentleman and a bother
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
406
Total Time
7700
yaks said:
No surprises here. Airbus also hid the A300 rudder problems for 2+ years until AA 587 crashed and they are still denying any culpability.

Whaa? AA 587's FO applied immediate full rudder in one direction and then full rudder in the other direction. Something which in certification the airplane's tail wasn't required to withstand. WWII B-17 manual warned against full rudder deflection one way and then suddenly full deflection in the other for this very reason (risk to the vertical stabilizer). If he hadn't applied rudder in that way they wouldn't have crashed.

The problem was with the vertical stabilizer structure, not the rudder. Surely you mean the composite structure holding the vertical stabilizer to the fuselage, which has been shown to develop microscopic cracks after excursions outside of normal manuevering, cracks which maintenance had found difficult to detect in inspections. Also, the rudder deflection vs. pedal deflection and pressure is speed dependent and becomes more sensitive with higher pressure forces as you speed up, it is different than Boeing rudders. I'm not shifting my blame totally away from Airbus (composite has no bend before it breaks like metal does) but as I recall the NTSB laid the blame for this one at the feet of the pilot. No pun intended.
 

SkiFishFly

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Posts
779
Total Time
4000
I would lay the majority of the blame at the feet of the engineer in charge of developing the vertical stabilizer. I'd say that they underestimated the loads which that component would have to endure.
Also surprised the flight control computers allowed rudder deflection sufficient to cause failure in this regime.
 

Smoking Man

High Speed Aluminum
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
561
Total Time
7701
A little history here, during the birth of the Dornier 328 it was discovered that full rudder input over a certain speed, (I forget the speed) would result in possible loss of aircraft. So at speeds above (I forget the speed) the rudder was not able to make a full travel ( a rudder limiter) but the amount it was able to move was more than enough for control of flight.


.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Posts
4,872
Total Time
4
You're comparing a World War TWO Boeing B-17 to a "state of the art" Airbus 300-###

lol.....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk
 

91100 100 set

to the book
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Posts
694
Total Time
12,000
To continue with the thread hijacking...

I would imagine that just about any aircraft with hydraulic-powered flight controls would have some means of reducing surface travel as airspeed increases.

However, I did read somewhere (Flying magazine maybe?) an article discussing the rudder on the A-300 and the American accident in New York. I didn't really understand what I read because it sounded so backwards to me, but that article seemed to imply that the hydraulic systems powering the rudder actually get MORE sensitive as airspeed increases. A lighter feel at the pedal and less pedal travel to achieve a given surface deflection. Sounds completely backwards, so I could have read it wrong. Anybody with more knowledge care to comment?
 

DrewBlows

Go Tigers!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Posts
2,031
Total Time
4500
turbodriver said:
The 320 can dump fuel now?

Which is it? Can it dump fuel or not?

Yeah, but they have to run it through the combustion chamber first.
 

Buckaroo

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Posts
84
Total Time
5200
The feds should ground every A320 and get to the bottom of all of the nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed.
 

SKC

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Posts
679
Total Time
55
Metro752 said:
You're comparing a World War TWO Boeing B-17 to a "state of the art" Airbus 300-###

A300....state of the art? Good one.
 

SuperFLUF

lazy Mc Donald's pilot
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Posts
639
Total Time
12,000
yaks said:
No surprises here. Airbus also hid the A300 rudder problems for 2+ years until AA 587 crashed and they are still denying any culpability.

They still blame their "HAL 9000" flight control issues on the pilots instead of the programmers as well.
 

Capn Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Posts
114
Total Time
8000+
Buckaroo said:
The feds should ground every A320 and get to the bottom of all of the nose gear and flap problems before innocent people are killed.

So now there is a FLAP problem? Which news media do you work for???
 
Top