JetBlue flight 292( an airbus 320)in trouble over Long Beach.
Ravenshrike
22-09-2005, 01:26
It seems that the anding gear are stuck in the open position and the front gear is stuck sideways.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9430871/
JetBlue flight with 139 passengers on board developed a problem with its landing gear and was diverted to Los Angeles International Airport for an emergency landing on Wednesday, officials said.
Flight 292, which was bound for New York, was expected to attempt an emergency landing, a spokesman for Long Beach airport said. MSNBC TV reported that the plane was scheduled to attempt the landing at 5:25 p.m. The plane circled in the area burning fuel, aviation experts said. The Airbus A320 is designed so that it cannot dump fuel. The flight had a fullload of fuel for the cross-country flight.
The airplane flew past the tower at Long Beach airport where officials determined that there was a problem with the landing gear, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Donn Walker said. The plane's front wheels were turned sideways. (Art. cont.)
As an aside, has this ever happened to a boeing aircraft?
The South Islands
22-09-2005, 01:29
I just saw this on CNN. The front landing gear wheels are litteraly at a right angle from where they should be.
Why would Airbus design an aircraft without the ability to dump fuel?
I just saw this on CNN. The front landing gear wheels are litteraly at a right angle from where they should be.
Why would Airbus design an aircraft without the ability to dump fuel?
Because generally dumping fuel over land is a bad idea...
Mesatecala
22-09-2005, 01:32
Well I have most certainly seen this on the local news... I really hope things turn out alright..
The South Islands
22-09-2005, 01:33
Because generally dumping fuel over land is a bad idea...
Exept in emergency situations such as this. I'd much rather have my aircraft dump some fuel than die a firy death... :p
Exept in emergency situations such as this. I'd much rather have my aircraft dump some fuel than die a firy death... :p
Well, they aren't crashing yet, are they?
Mesatecala
22-09-2005, 01:35
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050921/ap_on_re_us/airliner_emergency
The Airbus A320 was dumping fuel over the Pacific, said Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Donn Walker.
--
Odd this source says the exact opposite..
The South Islands
22-09-2005, 01:38
Well, they aren't crashing yet, are they?
Not just this situation, but the very idea of building an aircraft w/o the ability to dump fuel. It's much safer to execute an emergency landing after dumping exess fuel. Less flammible material. I'd think it would just be a saftey thing.
Not just this situation, but the very idea of building an aircraft w/o the ability to dump fuel. It's much safer to execute an emergency landing after dumping exess fuel. Less flammible material. I'd think it would just be a saftey thing.
It just means you have to spend more time in the air burning off fuel...
The South Islands
22-09-2005, 01:40
It just means you have to spend more time in the air burning off fuel...
Which could be deadly in an in-flight emergency.
Which could be deadly in an in-flight emergency.
I sincerely doubt that it refuses to let them dump fuel, just in this case it wasn't necessary to do so yet.
Ravenshrike
22-09-2005, 01:44
Because generally dumping fuel over land is a bad idea...
At the altitude they dump it it atomizes wayyy above ground level.
Ravenshrike
22-09-2005, 01:45
I sincerely doubt that it refuses to let them dump fuel, just in this case it wasn't necessary to do so yet.
Flight 292, which was bound for New York, was expected to attempt an emergency landing, a spokesman for Long Beach airport said. MSNBC TV reported that the plane was scheduled to attempt the landing at 5:25 p.m. The plane circled in the area burning fuel, aviation experts said. The Airbus A320 is designed so that it cannot dump fuel. The flight had a fullload of fuel for the cross-country flight.
Wrong, it can't dump fuel.
Wrong, it can't dump fuel.
The Airbus A320 was dumping fuel over the Pacific, said Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Donn Walker.
Wrong, it can.
:rolleyes:
Ravenshrike
22-09-2005, 02:04
Wrong, it can.
:rolleyes:
No it can't. Otherwise this would have been resolved well over an hour and a half ago. It takes about 5 minutes to dump the fuel. The FAA spokesman is used to dealing with Boeing airplanes, all of which can dump fuel. In fact, given his later comment in the article I'd assume that the spokesman was just someone they called up in the FAA about the crisis, not someone involved.
Non Aligned States
22-09-2005, 02:10
Which brings to mind the question again? Why design it so that it cannot dump fuel? To cut on costs? Or something else?
Layarteb
22-09-2005, 02:12
The pilot is circling with about 6 hours of fuel, at the start. They burned off it in about 3 hours because this particular model cannot dump fuel or else they would have over the Pacific. Yahoo seems to have its story conflicted but they're the only ones who said it, all the people interviewing on CNN / FOXNEWS are saying it can't dump fuel.
I am sure this has happened before though on a Boeing. The real test between Boeing/Airbus is going to be when the thing actually touches down.
I just hope this doesn't turn into Sioux City, Iowa in 1989. Albeit that pilot was probably one of the best every (his feat has never been reproduced). That situation was very different though (they didn't have any hydraulic fluid).
Non Aligned States
22-09-2005, 02:14
I just hope this doesn't turn into Sioux City, Iowa in 1989. Albeit that pilot was probably one of the best every (his feat has never been reproduced). That situation was very different though (they didn't have any hydraulic fluid).
What happened then?
Layarteb
22-09-2005, 02:17
What happened then?
Something happened with the engine and it broke up, shredding through all 3 hydraulic lines of the DC-10. 3 were put in for redundancy. The plane was pretty much out of hydraulic fluid within minutes. The pilot literally flew the aircraft all the way to Sioux City, Iowa using the throttle to fly the aircraft, a safety feature on the DC-10, because they lacked the ability to move elevators, alerons, flaps, etc.
As the plane came in for landing, the right wind dipped and the nose hit the ground. The aircraft ignited, somersaulted, and skidded down the runway. 110 people of the 285 died and 1 crew member died. They tried to reproduce the flight in simulators but even the best pilots went down before they came anywhere near the runway.
The real shitty part about that was that the fire trucks couldn't roll until the aircraft came to a stop so they had to watch the plane skid down the whole runway, burning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
Layarteb
22-09-2005, 02:20
What a pilot!!! Hot damn! I got to hand it to the French on this one, that is definitely a well made aircraft. I expected that wheel to break off.
I still bet some jerks will sue! They won't be happy they're alive and they'll sue for trauma or some BS and want $20M each.
Automagfreek
22-09-2005, 02:20
Textbook landing!
New Foxxinnia
22-09-2005, 02:22
That landing leg held up really well.
Layarteb
22-09-2005, 02:22
Textbook landing!
Indeed and a good plane. Now if only they could make them fly without the vertical stablizer...talk about a tragedy there...
Automagfreek
22-09-2005, 02:24
Indeed and a good plane. Now if only they could make them fly without the vertical stablizer...talk about a tragedy there...
He kept that nose up as long as possible so that the friction on the rear tires would slow it down. Nice and graceful when the nose came down, and thank God that front landing gear didn't snap.
Layarteb
22-09-2005, 02:24
That was a McDonnel Douglas DC-10. Another American aerospace manufacturer. Bought by Boeing.
Yeah the Iowa thing was a DC-10. If the right wing didn't dip like it did, the landing would have been very successful. I think it was a bad gust of wind or something that made the wing dip. It was just something unexpected. You got to hand it to them on the a/c though, they flew the whole way without hydraulic fluid, using the throttle to fly.
Layarteb
22-09-2005, 02:25
He kept that nose up as long as possible so that the friction on the rear tires would slow it down. Nice and graceful when the nose came down, and thank God that front landing gear didn't snap.
Indeed. They put as much drag onto that SOB as possible. Good damn pilot!
They most likely have a reason for it. Airbus is a good airplane manufacturer, and the 320 is a solid plane.
Sabbatis
22-09-2005, 02:55
Nothing against Airbus particularly, but they didn't fare too well in their first public display of the auto-landing capabilities.
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
Obviously, it was investigated and improved. Kinda funny though - landed parallel the runway into the trees.
No it can't. Otherwise this would have been resolved well over an hour and a half ago. It takes about 5 minutes to dump the fuel. The FAA spokesman is used to dealing with Boeing airplanes, all of which can dump fuel. In fact, given his later comment in the article I'd assume that the spokesman was just someone they called up in the FAA about the crisis, not someone involved.
I was using it as an example of how anybody can pick anything from a story and declare it fact without knowing for sure, not claiming it to be true.