Seems to me that they chose to use up as much runway as possible while letting the airplane slow down before applying the brakes. I'm sure they wanted to keep as much downward force off of the nosegear strut until they absolutely needed it. Otherwise, I'm sure they could have stopped much sooner, but at the risk of the increased downward force collapsing the nosegear strut. Seems to me they thought absolutely everything through before finally landing the airplane. I'll be interested to hear what the aircrew and the passengers have to say about their experiences. I'd be looking for them soon on Letterman and Leno.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Jet Blue
- Thread starter nocal80
- Start date
kray1395 said:
With over 3 hours to burn down there was a lot of time for that CRM you are always hearing about. You can bet they were on the horn with everyone from Airbus to the tire manufacturer, not to mention the airline maintenance and operations folks. Hats of to the Captain, but he had a lot of help and he gets as much credit for asking the right questions and listening carefully before he made his decisions as he does for piloting the aircraft. You youngsters remember that.
Because it's so reliable, it will never have to dump fuel for and emergency landing. Makes sense to the Airbus designers/engineers .... so why should it bother anyone else ??? :icon_mi_1DocT said:
DocT said:
It isn't unusual for smaller airliners not to have a dump capability. The engineers say that you can come back "safely" at the max certified take off weight. That isn't to say you couldn't stress the aircraft, even to the point of some structural damage, but no failures would be expected. The max land weight is the certified weight the manufacturer says you can land at all day with ham fisted pilots like me at the controls and the aircraft will not be unduely stressed. A landing over max land weight in an aircraft such as the A320 or MD-80, or 717 is considered an emergency simply because it is beyond the max land weight approved by the manufacturer. Over max land up to max take off weight you declare an emergency and come back and land. I have seen MD-80s landed at max takeoff weight, about 20,000 pounds over max land, and it was back in service in a few hours after a thorough inspection by maintenance. Very large aircraft like B777s, MD-11s and A340s simply carry so much fuel for their long haul missions the structure might not withstand a landing at max take off weight. So they dump. A they have to dump at a certain rate to be certified by the FAA.
^ Everything Wink said ....
And sometimes you just gotta get it back on deck. For example: taking off > 800,000 # in a 747 and you catch fire or loose multiple engines or anything that makes it undesirable or not possible to stay airborne for 1/2 hour to dump to "maximum landing weight" ... you fly the airplane, turn downwind, dump if you get to it, declare an emergency and LAND. Any aircraft can land just as heavy as it took off --- you just don't do a carrier landing and "prang" it. Grease it on --- the aircraft gets an inspection and you stand-by to defend your decision --- some things demand expediency --- not a half hour of dumping or 3 hours flying around burning off your fuel to get down to the desired MLW .....
And sometimes you just gotta get it back on deck. For example: taking off > 800,000 # in a 747 and you catch fire or loose multiple engines or anything that makes it undesirable or not possible to stay airborne for 1/2 hour to dump to "maximum landing weight" ... you fly the airplane, turn downwind, dump if you get to it, declare an emergency and LAND. Any aircraft can land just as heavy as it took off --- you just don't do a carrier landing and "prang" it. Grease it on --- the aircraft gets an inspection and you stand-by to defend your decision --- some things demand expediency --- not a half hour of dumping or 3 hours flying around burning off your fuel to get down to the desired MLW .....
to quote A4s, " Standby to Defend your Decisions"
This is the case in all aspects of aviation, remember someone at a desk with a cup of coffee and some time to think will second guess every move you made and yes even every meal you had leading up to an incident.
This is the case in all aspects of aviation, remember someone at a desk with a cup of coffee and some time to think will second guess every move you made and yes even every meal you had leading up to an incident.
Checkout CNN Airbus is already saying how their plane was designed to land safely with a nose gear failure. How about designing a nose gear that doesn't fail.
I was at a baseball game last night when this happened and they showed the landing on the big screen in center field and my first thought after the landing was that I couldn't wait to get A-4's read on this. I wasn't disappointed
CNN
I was at a baseball game last night when this happened and they showed the landing on the big screen in center field and my first thought after the landing was that I couldn't wait to get A-4's read on this. I wasn't disappointed
CNN
JIMC5499 said:
Heh... I'll try that one on my next EP Sim... "Jeez, why are we practicing this? Why not just tell Boeing to make a plane which doesn't break?"
