JetBlue Flight Lands Safely After Reporting Flap Problems

ABC News & The Associated Press ^ | Sept. 22, 2005 | The Associated Press

[RunningWolf]

A Jet Blue airliner landed safely at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Thursday after its pilot reported a problem with the wing flaps as the plane prepared to descend, an airline spokeswoman said. No injuries were reported.

The emergency landing ..

[RunningWolf]

The only way for things to change is for the public-you to know. My goal is to get all the info (without hyperbole) to you.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

That is a good point on the 737 series.
The 737-300, 737-500 was not a whole lot more than a -200 with new engines and a glass flight deck

[little jeremiah]

And I do appreciate hearing from those who do know more than me!

[leadpenny]

Not to take anything away from the Jet Blue pilots, but, compared to what you son must be doing every day, they had a walk in the park.

Mail at ya.

[sam_paine]

they also supply the gear for the Boeing F/A-18 E....

Race-ready Ferrari's use carbon-fiber brake discs, too.....that doesn't mean they are a reliable solution for your daughter's daily driver at college where it will get spotty maintenance.

Obviously FBW is required to make inherently unstable ultra-performance aircraft stay in the air (F117?) But it makes sense to me for a pax aircraft to be a boring lumpy naturally stable, maximum safety margin aircraft. It strikes me that the philosophy of Airbus is too aggressive for the real world (crappy maintenance) environment. (I think in a similar way about MacAir and the DC-10 hydraulics and the MD-80 elevator trim jacks, etc., but I think those guys were just sloppy! Airbus is not sloppy, which in many ways is scarier!)

Both Boeing and Airbus may use the same chunk of 7075 aluminum, and look, both companies are competent, but the design philosophy of Boeing still has allegiance to their history, in my humble opinion.

Boeing's corporate response to initial Airbus claims of their flight control superiority (regarding envelope limits controlled by the avionics computers) was that "[Boeing] does not believe that limits imposed on the pilot for safety make any sense when the pilot is trying to avoid the ground....the pilot should have ultimate control."

I just associate (knee jerk or gut check, whatever) the same socialist vs. free market philosophies to the two companies. Like socialism, Airbus' design philosophy is just fine if the unexpected does not occur. I think Boeing designers are more in touch with their potential fallibility and the rules of Murphy, and that makes me more comfortable.

[sam_paine]

The A320 has a better safety record than the Boeing 737.

Well, let's remember the the 737 airframe is, what, 40 years old? And the A320 is less than half that? And the 737(-all models) has a total record of around 100 MILLION flights, and the A320 has less than 1/10th that number (roughly).

So given that many of the ancient 737's are now flying in Africa and South America Hilltopper Air and the 737 still boasts a safety record on par if not better than the younger craft.....

....my question would be.....if Airbus designs are disproportianally "particularly picky" about maintaining nose-gear o-rings etc, then should we not expect to see a widening of the safety gap as both sets of designs/craft age if the B737 design is generally superior??

Safisoft's experience with the 737 rudder flaw, is a perfect example. Only through real flight time (and real loss of life) did this design flaw get fixed (we hope!) How long has this nose-gear problem been known and unfixed?

All ENGINEERING companies have design problems that get exposed in the field. If they all are held responsible equally, it seems reasonable that the older design is the more "worked out."

[safisoft]

Safisoft's experience with the 737 rudder flaw, is a perfect example. Only through real flight time (and real loss of life) did this design flaw get fixed (we hope!) How long has this nose-gear problem been known and unfixed?

Because of my particular experience with this, this hits close to home. I had insiders in the NTSB investigation of the B737 hard over on the rudder. They knew within a month that the rudder actuator had issues. Boeing argued for 5 years before fixing it. My experience with Airbus is precisely the OPPOSITE. They in fact DO respond before the Government forces them. There is a different relationship in Government in Airbus - plus they do not appear to take things as personal as Boeing has over design issues. I am not sure why. I could point to numerous examples in the A320 where Airbus initiated significant design changes following accidents - whereas any aviation insider will tell you that Boeing will always wait until the NTSB findings to avoid (in their minds) the admission of fault.

Them's the facts.

[sam_paine]

My experience with Airbus.... ....Them's the facts.

....your opinion. Albeit learned/inside fact based....still a personal opinion.

There is a different relationship in Government in Airbus

NTSB found Boeing responsible for TWA800. Boeing engineers took that "personally."

As an engineer, I take criticism of my designs personally. I think that is an American trait. I also take the failures and the success personally.

I would actually prefer an aircraft that was designed with "personal" pride, rather than an impersonal bureaucratic "not my personal responsibility" attitude. I'm not sure this is still true with the current Boeing design groups and the 787, etc., but I (donning firesuit) think the monstrous A380 is never going to end up with the record in 40 years that the 747 has amassed.

If you're a pilot and I'm and engineer, then it's natural that we have different perspectives.

Just my opinion!

[safisoft]

Well here is additional information which sheds light on the "knee jerk reations" shown on this thread. Facts.

NTSB Identification: NYC99IA062 . The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of AMERICA WEST AIRLINES Incident occurred Tuesday, February 16, 1999 in COLUMBUS, OH Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/9/2001 Aircraft: Airbus Industrie A-320-231, registration: N628AW Injuries: 31 Uninjured. When the landing gear was lowered, the flight crew received landing gear control and interface unit (LGCIU) faults. A visual fly-by revealed the nose wheels were rotated 90 degrees from the desired direction for landing. A normal touchdown was made, after which, the captain commanded an emergency evacuation using the overwing exits.

Examination of the airplane revealed the external 'O' rings in the steering control valve had extruded and by-passed pressurized hydraulic fluid to rotate the nose wheels. This event had occurred before, and the manufacturer had issued a service bulletin. The operator had not complied with the service bulletin...

Documents from Airbus indicated there have been three similar incidents in which A320 airplanes landed with the nose wheels rotated about 90 degrees. Examination of the steering control modules on two of the airplanes revealed extrusion of the selector valve's external seals similar to that found on N628AW. Airbus had attributed the extrusion failures to the lack of a backup seal or the effects of aging on the seals. As a result of these incidents, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1197 on October 8, 1998, to recommend replacement of the external seals on the steering control module's selector valve on A320 and A321 airplanes within 18 months of the SB's issuance. At the time of the incident, neither the French Direction General de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), had adopted the service bulletin as an airworthiness directive.

[safisoft]

I would actually prefer an aircraft that was designed with "personal" pride.

So, what kind of engineer considers "personal pride" an excuse for not redesigning a rudder actuator for 5 years when everyone concerned knows the design was crap. So you turn a faulty response to design flaws into a strength, and the correct response into a weakness, because in your view it is a difference between European and American? Yeah, right. So tell me what manufacturer I should avoid if that is the attitude of one of its engineers?

Give me the best product. Boycott Airbus for political reasons, but don't say it is because it is inferior unless you can prove it, which you can't.

[sam_paine]

everyone concerned knows the design was crap....So tell me what manufacturer I should avoid if that is the attitude of one of its engineers?

Wow....you must be omniscient. How about you take it down a notch? You took my post and tainted it with nothing I said, and turned ad hominem. There's nothing I posted that attacked your integrity.

So far you've related a single story. You have gripes about a 737 rudder actuator issue. As far as I can tell, you think Airbus has a superior record addressing all design flaws....including, apparently, this recurring A320 nosegear issue which has obviously not been resolved.

I respect your opinion, but you've shown up with no "facts" supporting your hasty generalization either.

At least I acknowledge when I'm stating an opinion.

[RunningWolf]

The safety records of Boeing and Airbus aside, these A320 & A319 nose gear failures are occurring from improper assembly.

All US operated 737's with the old style rudder actuators have now been replaced for several years.

[safisoft]

I respect your opinion, but you've shown up with no "facts" supporting your hasty generalization either.

See post 109. Until you know what caused the incident at LAX, you are merely voicing an opinion that this incident is related to any previous incidents.

As for the rudder in the B737, I merely used that as an example. I have 8,000 hours and 12 years flying B737. I can cite flaws in the A320 design as well, but the nose gear is not one of them.

When does experience actually begin to count - or must I be an arm chair analyst getting my 'facts' from MSNBC?

[safisoft]

The safety records of Boeing and Airbus aside, these A320 & A319 nose gear failures are occurring from improper assembly.

Not true. See post 109.

[RunningWolf]

IMO there is a broad spectrum of what pilots know and think they know about their airplanes.

A anecdotal story, I was sent out buy off a 737 stab trim motor, very simple.
When I get to the airplane the pilots are on board (bad) and already don't like the airplane.
The FO says that the manual trim feels rough, (I'm good at putting my foot in it) I reach down an spin the trim wheel about 2x as fast as that motor ever will, and then announce 'there is nothing wrong with this'(DOH!)
the Captain steps and says 'I'm the Captain and I say its bad' I say 'well write it up then..' he says 'done, done' Then captain says that sometime the stab trim cables get iced up and cause it to be rough, well that's nice except the stab trim cables run under the floorboards, then out of the pressure dome for about 6 feet, and are never exposed to the outside elements.

Well the system passed all the tests with flying colors.. so the the pilots decided that it 'felt okay now'

;)

[RunningWolf]

Well.. they always tell us its maint fault, just like its always your fault too!

[safisoft]

IMO there is a broad spectrum of what pilots know and think they know about their airplanes.

Too true. I know that I have been red-faced before about what I thought was wrong, only to find that it was not what I thought.

However, I would value the opinion of a pilot who has years experience in both American and European made aircraft - than I would the knee-jerks on this thread who understandably do not like anything European, making assinine comments about the inferiority of a design, without the slightest idea what they are talking about in general - expecially considering the specifics of the JFK and the LAX incidents, where the causes remain unknown.

[RunningWolf]

Oh I know what you mean, that applies to all of us I think.

I write from where my understanding is at and think it will all be transmitted in a 20 to 50 word post.. NOT!! then it engages someone else's fear or other emotional hook and 'start the roller coaster'

But about the LAX incident, there is only a few things that can go wrong in there to cause this, assemblywise or other, look for SB's quickly, and a subsequent AD note to come out

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Only through real flight time (and real loss of life) did this design flaw get fixed (we hope!) How long has this nose-gear problem been known and unfixed?

Sometimes the system works and sometimes the system fails ( the system being the airplane maker, engineering, the operator-airline, the FAA, NTSB, the personnel) and then a failure gets thru the net.

I don't know if you were close to the FLT811 incident when the 747 fwd door blew off, well there were a few warnings of this in months prior that did not raise the alarm in time, for instance when a Pan AM 747 had a cargo door partially open (18" or so).


On a side not I have read some material and looked at the TWA FLT800 incident. That airplane was also an old series 747, and the way the structure came apart looks alot like a forward cargo door failure. I'll try to get it here sometime.

[kmiller1k]

Where did you find this information about Jetblue's political contributions? The founder of Jetblue is a Mormon and it just seems unlikely that he would contribute to dems.