Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 03:21:25 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  jet blue landing at LAX
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: jet blue landing at LAX  (Read 29448 times)
KPryor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2005, 11:52:43 PM »

Very impressive!  I just saw the video and couldn't believe it went that well.  The crew deserves a big pat on the back for that one.
KP
Logged
frantzy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2005, 11:55:13 PM »

Quote from: SadWinter
did u notice there wasnt spoilers or reverse thrust? can someone explain that?


Just a guess but I thought it would shift the weight forward onto the nose gear, increasing the likelihood of a collapse.
Logged
JALTO
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2005, 11:58:36 PM »

Quote from: bschott
Quote from: tflight
and he landed exactly on centerline!!!!


If you mean by that picture from CNN.com, that is a computer generated image and not a real picture from the landing.

Also notice how CNN tried to sensationalize the news?  "Flames shot off the front landing gear as the plane ground to a halt with firefighters at the ready."

I didn't see any grinding going on and a brief flare from the nose gear but it didn't SHOOT flames.  

Can't they report the facts anymore?  First they report a fuel dump (which the A320 can't do), then they can't agree if it landed on 24R or 25L.  Next they might say that they think it landed at JFK instead of LAX. sheeesh.


Wow...I would expect a post like this to be on airliners.net where everyone gets flamed or "Flared" depending on how you want to phrase it.

I just heard on the unreliable cnn tv that the B6 passengers actually got to watch coverage of the situation on the in flight entertainment system!  Now that beats peanuts and a coke any day of the week.
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2005, 12:09:58 AM »

I'm surprised that the crew did not turn the system off since it would make more problems than needed for them (pax becoming more anxious, more questions, no answers for them, etc, etc)

To answer the question about no reverse thrust, I'm not too familiar with the A320, but (I thought the spoilers were deployed, but I may be mistaken) I have to take a different opinion then frantzy.  If you've every heard of the story of airliners "backing" out of there gates if no tugs are available (on certain a/c) using reverse thrust, if the brakes are applied quickly, the tail will shoot down, hit the ground and force the nose up in the air.  (Imagine, a plane to a rocket ship tongue)  I believe that reverse thrust would relieve nosewheel pressure unless it would never be used.  If the thrust direction was changed 180 degrees (reversed) then the high amount of drag (mostly caused by thrust but partly parasite) would relieve nosewheel pressure as it comes down.  If it forced it further down [into the runway] that could cause damage to the nosewheel and strut.  Not an expert on this, but it doesn't seem to be rocket science (No pun intended John M.  cheesy )

Jason
Logged
stealth71
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158



« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2005, 12:26:39 AM »

JALTO, local news in Missoula did the same thing, almost called them up to tell them to cool it after the following comments;

"The aircraft skidded wildly down the runway..."

"...could have ignited the highly explosive jet fuel."

Well, that was one of the smoothest landings I've ever seen, didn't see any wild skidding. Jet fuel explosive? Hmmmm, speaking as a fuel CQ manager at MSO, jet fuel is flammable. It's not explosive unless it's dispersed into a mist.  Media. rolleyes
Logged

Chris Hart
Missoula International Airport (MSO) live feed.
http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=kmso

Ham Call: KE7MH
JALTO
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2005, 12:39:49 AM »

media = entertainment.....I guess they did their job if we kept watching!  But then again I know nothing about the media business and will not comment on them any further.

And now moving on.....hopefully they can now use this situation for training new and experienced pilots around the world on how to handle emergencies like this and keep our behinds even safer while traveling the skies.  Good job to the pilots and crew for safe landing and keeping the passengers calm.

PS...my "unreliable" cnn comment was a joke!

-J
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 912


« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2005, 01:36:31 AM »

For the question of why the reverse thrust wasn't used...

The answer is simple.. momentum/inertia. Smiley

Think about it.. you feel pushed forward when the plane rolls out and the reverse thrusters are activated. just like breaks on a car. With the front gear sideways, if the reverse thrusters were used, the front gear would have collapsed. Not a good thing.. so let it coast, and what you see is history. Smiley

BL.
Logged
SadWinter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2005, 01:53:07 AM »

Thanks a lot for the answer... When I was watching the landing I was screaming for spoilers hehehe
Logged
sam_nz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2005, 06:31:49 AM »

Wow!

I missed that on SoCal feed cause I happened to be at our airport doing a bit of plane spotting but I just watched the video.

As one who is slowly learning (so forgive any errors), that was a stunning piece of airmanship from the crew.  Cool, calm, collected.  Knew exactly what they needed to do and did it.

All I need to do now is find the archives. Tongue
Logged

E&OE, I'm female, I'm learning, Bear with me.
Jonathan_tcu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2005, 06:36:12 AM »

I was just listening to a radio station online from London Ontario, and heard comments from passengers who were thrilled, excited and very pleased with the manor the pilots landed that aircraft.  

"It was the best landing I have ever seen! "
Logged

FSS wannabe, just curious about stuff, that's all.
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2005, 06:55:10 AM »

Quote from: tyketto
For the question of why the reverse thrust wasn't used...

The answer is simple.. momentum/inertia. Smiley


Doh!  embarassed
Logged
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2005, 07:18:49 AM »

Brian, this is not a forum where we start arguments or flaming etc, keep it either on A.net or the Vatsim.net forums.

Out of any factor, I believe the thrust reversers were not released, because of fear about peices of the nose gear being ingested into the engines. They already are spending enough money repairing the gear and patching the belly, the last thing they want to worry about is replacing two IAE V2527's.
Logged
bcrosby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2005, 09:14:25 AM »

Here is a nice shot of the fire..
Logged

deverette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2005, 11:04:52 AM »

Quote
Out of any factor, I believe the thrust reversers were not released, because of fear about peices of the nose gear being ingested into the engines. They already are spending enough money repairing the gear and patching the belly, the last thing they want to worry about is replacing two IAE V2527's.


Brings up a question I have. Granted the captain has the final say, but what would the typical protocol/procedure be with the engines in a situation like this? Would you shut them down immediately once you were committed to the landing to minimize possibility of injesting anything coming off the nose gear assembly? If you do shut them down, how long until you'll lose effective hydraulic pressure to maintain directional control with the rudder (obviously once it's no longer aerodynamically effective, it's mute point)? Would you energize the APU and run electric hydraulic pumps to keep the pressure up? Or would you leave the engines running, so there is an alternative method of maintaining directional control (with the engines) if it's necessary.

Pardon my ignorance on the A320 flight systems, just curious.
Logged

-Dan Everette
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2005, 11:45:25 AM »

Quote
Brings up a question I have. Granted the captain has the final say, but what would the typical protocol/procedure be with the engines in a situation like this? Would you shut them down immediately once you were committed to the landing to minimize possibility of injesting anything coming off the nose gear assembly?


I am only a GA pilot, so take this for what its worth:  In the GA world, we are constantly drilled with the concept that once an emergency occurs, the aircraft is owned by the insurance company.  In other words, do what needs to be done to save the people; do not do something silly to endanger the people by attempting to save the aircraft.

There have been more than a few GA landing-gear-failed-to-fully-deploy-and-lock emergencies where the pilot attempted to save the engine/prop by shutting down the engine on short final.  In some of these cases, the pilot lost airspeed awareness and stalled the aircraft, nosing in from 100 feet or so.  These accidents are tragic but avoidable.

In the case of the Airbus, I would speculate that there was no attempt to shut down the engines on short final.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!