Whew!

[Guest bobsk8]

Keep in mind, if you fly Airbus Aircraft alot, you might get to experience this for yourself. Check out this stuff I found this morning. On November 21, 2002, at 1006 central standard time, an Airbus Industrie A319-131, N804UA, operated by United Airlines (UAL) as flight 603, received minor damage when it landed on runway 04R (8,071 feet by 150 feet, asphalt) at the O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Chicago, Illinois. The airplane landed with the nose landing gear (NLG) wheels turned 90 degrees to the direction of travel. There were no injuries to the 2 pilots, 3 flight attendants, and 77 passengers on board.For full details of what they found to have caused this see:-https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...I03IA027&akey=1and on another site I found:-Airbus A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes: AD, final rule, requires modification of the electro-distributor for the nose wheel steering servo-control. Actions are to prevent uncommanded nose landing gear wheel rotation, due to defective seals in the wheel steering selector valve of the hydraulic control unit for the nose landing gear. Effective December 17. Docket No. 99-NM-106-AD; Amendment 39-11405; AD 99-23-09.and another JetBlue A320, after a incorrectly installed componet after recent maintenance.On November 1, 2002, an Airbus A320, being operated by JetBlue landed at the John F. Kennedy International (JFK) Airport, New York, New York, with its NLG turned 90 degrees. This airplane had come out of maintenance where the NLG dynamic seal was replaced approximately 3 days prior to the incident. The airplane had flown 15 cycles and 23 hours between the completion of the maintenance and the incident. The investigation into this incident revealed the same findings as were found on N804UA. The upper centering cam on the inner cylinder had been mis-installed. This resulted in the anti-rotation lugs not being perpendicular to the axle and consequently the lugs were not properly seated in the backplate slots.Messier-Dowty reported that there have been two additional incidents involving the mis-assembly of the NLG shock absorber. One of these involved a Canada 3000 A320 and the other occurred in Ireland.

[MarkRey 16]

and of course, I must throw in a kind word for the A320 itself, which was apparently totally obedient to her Captain's skillfully finessed piloting, and finally kept her 'chin' up under tremendous stress.edit - having just seen Bob's post i would hope now that this issue has received such a high profile live expose that it will be dealt with in earnest by operators of A32x equipment.regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

[RobertVA 0]

Please explain how a rearward force on the engines ABOVE the wheels would increase weight on the nose gear. I propose it would have the opposite effect (possibly slight with wing mounted engines). Might reduce airflow past the rudder though.Now main wheel brakes would be an entirely different matter.

[Guest Red Eye]

Yep, makes sense and that's why he used almost the entire length of the runway bleeding off speed.Wonderful landing. Just Perfect!

[greggerm 312]

Simple braking physics - reverse thrust would strengthen the braking effect on the airplane, putting more weight on the front strut just as applying strong wheel brakes would. The airplanes inertia outclasses the reversers thrust vector in this case. Irregardless of how you are slowing down, your car has the tendancy to lean forward when you brake - so too does an airplane. It was just a matter of braking as gently as possible. Even the wheel brakes were used lightly to keep as little force on the front strut. This is why the plane ate up practically the entire runway. Reverse thrust would have added to this braking effect, applying more than desired weight to the strut. Only after the pilot realized that he was running out of room did they apply more wheel brakes - noticable on the tape as the plane slides down at a near-constant speed, only to slow down quite quickly towards the end. Irregardless of the braking effect, running a turbofan engine at full reverse thrust with sparks and debris flying into them from the broken gear isn't too good on the engines either - I'd wager THAT was the primary reason for not using them.

[Guest P3_Super_Bee]

>The pilot that put down Jetblue Flight 292 should get a>bonus!!! Why did the pilot of a jetBlue A320 at JFK(NOV 02), a United A319 Pilot in ORD(NOV02), or a AW A320 pilot in CMH(FEB99) get a bonus when they landed their aircraft in the SAME 90 degree out nose wheels get a bonus... NOPE IT IS THEIR JOB, no more, no less...United NTSB Report(with mention of the jetBlue mishap):https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...I03IA027&akey=1America West NTSB Report:https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...C99IA062&akey=1With the stupid media hype all think this is a one of kind landing, when in fact, after looking over these two report its seems incorrect pub writting. (though, Airbus bashers hold off a second here, this is nothing new either, I work on an aircraft that was designed in the late 50's/early 60's and we are STILL updating the manuals... It is a neverending process... http://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpg

[Guest bonjourmoi44]

Jeff I would have to disagree. Most jobs have incentives pushing employees to excel within their profession. With your line of thinking it seems to me that companies would not succeed as their employees would feel like a number or simply a goat. Looking at an employee who works retail when a secret shopper comes in he/she could receive a bonus for simply performing their job well. Or looking at an accountant for a major corporation who finds a glitch within their monetary spending and saves the company thousands if not millions of dollars he/she could also receive a bonus. In fact this situation happens all the time and bonuses are given out to employees who perform their job well. Should we look at pilots and the flight attendants of these airplanes any differently? Well, I guess I would have to say yes. For one, the crew's actions directly affected the lives of all souls on board and the fate of jetBlue. Not to mention the lives of all family members of those who were on board. I personally think jetBlue should go one step further and give all who helped make the safe landing possible a bonus. There have been many times in aviation history when pilots did not keep their cool, calm, professionalism or competent pilot skills on board with them during an emergency. Many of these pilots had many hours and an amazing safety record, yet they still cracked at the pivotal moment. Sports players choke all the time when it counts most. No sir, these guys and gals of jetBlue and the the other Airbus pilots who performed similar feats deserve all the respect and admiration we can dish out. I can only imagine if someone I loved was on the flight. I can only think how in debt I would feel to these men and women who would have brought them home safely. Of course the bonus each received could be donated to hurricane relief to really go full circle.

[Guest P3_Super_Bee]

This was nothing more than a routine infight malfuction blown totally out of proportion by the media, and uneducated people watching the talking heads, claiming this guy is a hero. He simply did the job he was paid to do. Nothing more, nothing less.I don't buy into the extra pay fot the extra step BS... You will then (and TOU WILL) run into,, "Why did he get a bonus for the same landing I did three months ago and I didn't get anything" arguements.I experience this exact thing... A guy got an award for having an inflight malfunction, then figured out the problem and then fixing it on the ground. TWICE in fact for the awards, 3/4 other times as well(could only pin 3 or 4 more too him, there probably were many more) with out award reconition. The higher ups were like "Wow, what a guy, he so good!!!!!" Turns out the JACKASS was causing the problems in the first place.... TO GET MORE RECONITION, and guess what being in the military there were NO PAY BONUSES involved, only the worthless piece of paper his awards were written on, and MORE IMPORTANLTY PEOPLES LIVES...http://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpg

[Guest TWVA395]

The truth is... that was a difficult landing. Although the media did make too big a deal out of it, the pilots in that cockpit saved the passengers and (most of) the aicraft. A bonus for the pilot(s)? I don't think so, they were trained for this situation. HOWEVER, they still deserve recognition for handling the situation so well. Have you ever been in the air and had an emergency? It's not something to be taken lightly.http://www.kthxdone.com/images/kw_ft.jpgKen Weik [link:maam.org|MAAM-SIM][link:library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=root&SearchTerm=kenneth+weik&Sort=Added&ScanMode=0&Go=Change+View]My AFCADs

[mgh 89]

The engines are below the wing and thus below the aircraft's centre of gravity. Reverse thrust would cause a nose-down pitching moment that would have to be counteracted by an additional force on the nose wheel.

[Guest P3_Super_Bee]

>HOWEVER, they still deserve recognition>for handling the situation so well. Have you ever been in the>air and had an emergency? It's not something to be taken>lightly.Have many of times. And still they did their job, nothing more nothing less.-a Pilot(Crews) that would/and does rate the "hero" rating that these guys are getting are, from me would be the likes of Capt Robert Schomsheimer & FO Mimi Tompkins & Crew AQ243 -Kahului, Maui, Hawaii or Capt Al Haynes & crew on UA232, Sioux City Iowa.http://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpg

[mgh 89]

>>Irregardless of how you are slowing down, your car has the>tendancy to lean forward when you brake - so too does an>airplane. >That's not true.A car leans forward because the braking force on it occurs at the interface between the tyre and road. This is below the CG so it causes a nose-down pitching moment. If the reverse thrust on an aircraft acted through its CG there would be no nose-down or nose-up pitching moment due to it and no increase in the load on the nose wheel.A braking parachute is typically attached to the top of the fuselage in which case, being above the CG, it would give a nose-up pitching moment on its own.

[KevinAu 441]

I agree, all they did was their freaking job. Everybody that sits in the first two chairs should be capable of doing something like this. The only reason there are still pilots in airplanes is because of abnormalities. When we train for the plane, the normal flying that occurs 99% of the time on job is covered during the first part of the first sim session. The rest of the however many sessions long training program is spent with an engine on fire or a what-not system out. That's the only reason pilots are still used. Otherwise, we could all be replaced by the autoflite system. If people are thinking those particular pilots deserve $XX,XXX more money for what they did, then what they're actually finally realizing is how much more all competent pilots are actually worth.

[Guest bonjourmoi44]

Your comments seem to be dispassionate mixed with a hint of a jaundiced emotion. But hey, that's what makes the Avsim world spin. I suppose my comments are a little too idealistic mixed with a hint of excessive veneration. To all their own. edit:The plane landed safely and that is all that really matters. Lives are still living and families are still loving.

[mgh 89]

I never cease to be astonished by the mean mindedness of some posters here. I suspect that - like me - they've never had responsibility for the lives of a plane-load of passengers in a situation where an error could not only cause the deaths of their passengers but also of themselves.