Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Airbus Admits Problem on 320!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

heywatchthis

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Posts
199
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.
 
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?
 
No surprises here. Airbus also hid the A300 rudder problems for 2+ years until AA 587 crashed and they are still denying any culpability.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
You're comparing a World War TWO Boeing B-17 to a "state of the art" Airbus 300-###

lol.....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk
 

Latest resources

Back
Top