Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
This post deleted by moi because: A.net was wrong.
Leaderboard:
Facts:
JC - 100
CNN - 23
A.net 0
Leaderboard:
Facts:
JC - 100
CNN - 23
A.net 0
JetBlue Landing Gear Problems
- Thread starter GreenDayPilot
- Start date
GreenDayPilot
Well-Known Member
Everybody keeps saying "pilot" and yes, there's only one pilot flying, but the PNF is important too! CRM people, CRM...
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
Wow, they said they moved everyone to the back of the plane on landing. I have done W&B on the A320 series and on a full flight that would totally screw up the #ers. I never would have thought that would be an option. Although I do suppose the less weight up front would be better, I wonder if the thing was even close to being in trim?
Pretty cool to see that they let them watch themselves on TV till about 3 min before they landed.
To the crew you guys rock!
Pretty cool to see that they let them watch themselves on TV till about 3 min before they landed.
To the crew you guys rock!
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Chris - you should know better than to trust what's being said on A.net.. shame on you!!
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, but when it was "confirmed" by a second source (albeit less reliable), I bit. But the point stands that you shouldn't assume that it's a guy when it may actually be a gal.
But, they didn't leave the strobes on, and we all know how women and blinkers go
(I keed, I keed)
Chris - you should know better than to trust what's being said on A.net.. shame on you!!
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, but when it was "confirmed" by a second source (albeit less reliable), I bit. But the point stands that you shouldn't assume that it's a guy when it may actually be a gal.
But, they didn't leave the strobes on, and we all know how women and blinkers go
GreenDayPilot
Well-Known Member
yeah, this isn't a movie (i.e., Speed) where everyone just moves to one side w/o assuming the emergency position
Captain_Bob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know why they didn't use reverse after touchdown, or so it seems.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes... He wanted to keep the nosewheel off the runway for as long as possible.
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the reverse thrusters change the cg more to the front of the plane and put more weight on it.
[/ QUOTE ]Exactly...
Also on many planes... Reverse thrust won't be available until the WOW (Weight On Wheels) sensors of all three landing gear are indicating "on the ground".
Bob
Does anyone know why they didn't use reverse after touchdown, or so it seems.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes... He wanted to keep the nosewheel off the runway for as long as possible.
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the reverse thrusters change the cg more to the front of the plane and put more weight on it.
[/ QUOTE ]Exactly...
Also on many planes... Reverse thrust won't be available until the WOW (Weight On Wheels) sensors of all three landing gear are indicating "on the ground".
Bob
sldauby
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the reverse thrusters change the cg more to the front of the plane and put more weight on it.
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I noticed from the video, no reverse thrust was used. Either it was intentional or as Captain Bob said it could be regarding WOW.
[ QUOTE ]
What channel are you watching... thats one good looking anchor woman
[/ QUOTE ]
LCI
C'est en français
wouldn't the reverse thrusters change the cg more to the front of the plane and put more weight on it.
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I noticed from the video, no reverse thrust was used. Either it was intentional or as Captain Bob said it could be regarding WOW.
[ QUOTE ]
What channel are you watching... thats one good looking anchor woman
[/ QUOTE ]
LCI
C'est en français
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
moved everyone to the back?? how's that work when there are oh so many seats and seatbelts?
are you saying people were standing on landing??
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just relaying info I heard on the tube. It did come from one of the pax and I am thinking he meant they just moved people from the front to empty seats in the back. I thought about that too after I posted it. It wouldnt make sense if it was a full flight.
I also heard the a/c described as an A310 from the same newschannel.
Either way I am betting that was a nightmare for the weight and balance folks trying to do all those fuel calculations and then determine what cabin they want people to sit in. As far as I know the A320 only has two cabins so I don't think it would matter much if you were not in the first 10 rows. Interesting though.
moved everyone to the back?? how's that work when there are oh so many seats and seatbelts?
are you saying people were standing on landing??
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just relaying info I heard on the tube. It did come from one of the pax and I am thinking he meant they just moved people from the front to empty seats in the back. I thought about that too after I posted it. It wouldnt make sense if it was a full flight.
I also heard the a/c described as an A310 from the same newschannel.
Either way I am betting that was a nightmare for the weight and balance folks trying to do all those fuel calculations and then determine what cabin they want people to sit in. As far as I know the A320 only has two cabins so I don't think it would matter much if you were not in the first 10 rows. Interesting though.
mpenguin1
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
moved everyone to the back?? how's that work when there are oh so many seats and seatbelts?
are you saying people were standing on landing??
Chris - you should know better than to trust what's being said on A.net.. shame on you!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Kristie
Lord knows that I am not a pilot, but, if there were 149 people on a A320, which has close to 160 seats, they could have moved everybody to as far back as possible, leaving perhaps the first couple of rows open. Of course, everbody would be in a seat.........
This way, there way, there would be less weight in the front of the airplane, if the story turns out to be true...
If I remember, I will send an email to the Jetblue Chief pilot for the Long Beach crew base whom I happen to know. I am sure that he would know if this was true or not...
moved everyone to the back?? how's that work when there are oh so many seats and seatbelts?
are you saying people were standing on landing??
Chris - you should know better than to trust what's being said on A.net.. shame on you!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Kristie
Lord knows that I am not a pilot, but, if there were 149 people on a A320, which has close to 160 seats, they could have moved everybody to as far back as possible, leaving perhaps the first couple of rows open. Of course, everbody would be in a seat.........
This way, there way, there would be less weight in the front of the airplane, if the story turns out to be true...
If I remember, I will send an email to the Jetblue Chief pilot for the Long Beach crew base whom I happen to know. I am sure that he would know if this was true or not...
slowandlow
New Member
I can't confirm this, but I was told that there is/was an AD for the nose gears for Airbus. Like I said I have no idea if this is true someone just told me 156th hand.
EricPalmer
New Member
Re: JetBlue Landing Gear Problems...AP Photo
Wow. Great landing! Hats off to the crew!
A320 family can not dump fuel. I am not a big brain on the topic, but just by luck had to read tons of info on the A320 family over the last few days.
Wow. Great landing! Hats off to the crew!
A320 family can not dump fuel. I am not a big brain on the topic, but just by luck had to read tons of info on the A320 family over the last few days.
