Jetblue Flt 292 Bur-jfk Diverted To Lgb

FYI - A follow-up - UAL's A319 Nose Gear


NTSB Identification: CHI03IA027.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact <http://www.ntsb.gov/info/sources.htm#pib>Public Inquiries
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier (D.B.A. United Air LInes)
Incident occurred Thursday, November 21, 2002 in Chicago, IL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/28/2004
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie A319-131, registration: N804UA
Injuries: 82 Uninjured.
The airplane landed with the nose wheels turned 90 degrees to the direction of travel. The flight crew was unable to retract the landing gear after takeoff. They received the L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT and AUTO FLT A/THR OFF messages on the electronic centralized aircraft monitoring (ECAM) system. In addition, they had a Nose Wheel Steering message on the landing gear ECAM page. Unable to rectify the problem, the captain elected to return to land at ORD. The captain reported that he did not have any problem controlling the airplane during the landing. During the landing roll, he was informed by the control tower that there were sparks coming from the nose gear. The airplane stopped on the runway and the passengers were deplaned. Post-incident inspection revealed the nose landing gear (NLG) wheels were turned 90 degrees to the left, both of the tires were blown, and the left side tire rim was ground down to the axle. The right side tire rim was nearly ground down to the axle. The incident occurred on the fourth flight following a maintenance "C" check where the dynamic seals inside the nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber had been replaced.

The maintenance was performed by a contract facility
. Inspection and teardown of the nose gear revealed the shock absorber had been assembled and installed in the airplane incorrectly during the C-check. This resulted in the anti-rotation lugs on the shock absorber, not being properly seated in the back plate slots. Following this incident, the back plate manufacturer has redesigned the back plate (waiting manufacturer and DGAC approval), the operator has revised their job instruction cards for disassembly and assembly of the NLG shock absorber, and the aircraft manufacturer has revised the Aircraft Maintenance Manual.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:
The maintenance facililty improperly assembled and installed the nose landing gear shock absorber assembly. Factors were the improper assembly which allowed the nose gear to turn 90 degrees to the direction of travel.
 
Dizel8 said:
WNforlife that about says it all, no hidden agenda there. Maybe ground the 73's because they are "hard" to slow down, they experience ruddder hard overs or they suffer center fuel tank explosions?
[post="305875"][/post]​

No hidden agenda. Just concerned about the welfare and safety of the flying pubic. :huh:
 
Dizel8 said:
Well then, let's ground the 737s untill we figure out the real problem with the rudder. You know the problem Boeing tries to blame on pilot errors and freak, unexplained winds.

Perhaps, but this is the JetBlue forum, and the discussion is about the A320.
Try to stay on topic :huh:
 
WNrforlife said:
Perhaps, but this is the JetBlue forum, and the discussion is about the A320.
Try to stay on topic :huh:
[post="306115"][/post]​

Try not to be a self serving idiot. You could care less about the safety of the flying public. You're here to stir the pot and lobby for something that would benefit you. Save it already.
 
WNrforlife said:
Perhaps, but this is the JetBlue forum, and the discussion is about the A320.
Try to stay on topic :huh:
[post="306115"][/post]​

I am sorry, but it is relevant to the discussion at hand. The 320 is not without flaws, but neither is the 737. One could easily argue, that the 737 is inherently more dangerous and has a known, fatal flaw, yet, I do not see you calling for grounding the 737.

Further, someone whose moniker is WNforlife, probably is associated with or cares greatly about SWA. SWA operates a rather largish fleet of 737 and a grounding of that fleet would be bad, as would a grounding of the Airbus fleet, but for jetblue.
So yes, I must concede, that I do see a somewhat self serving attribute in your post and as such, it seems less than honest.
 
Dizel8 said:
I am sorry, but it is relevant to the discussion at hand. The 320 is not without flaws, but neither is the 737. One could easily argue, that the 737 is inherently more dangerous and has a known, fatal flaw, yet, I do not see you calling for grounding the 737.

Further, someone whose moniker is WNforlife, probably is associated with or cares greatly about SWA. SWA operates a rather largish fleet of 737 and a grounding of that fleet would be bad, as would a grounding of the Airbus fleet, but for jetblue.
So yes, I must concede, that I do see a somewhat self serving attribute in your post and as such, it seems less than honest.
[post="306403"][/post]​

Dizel,

As an SWA employee, I'll tell you that WNforlife doesn't speak for me or other SWA employees on this board. He enjoys stirring the pot, and he's a constant source of embarrassment for the SWA employees on this board. Take his posts with a grain of salt - I personally question his legitimacy as an SWA employee anyway. He seems to enjoy making our airline look like a bunch of arrogant pricks.

Some of us are well aware of karma. Aircraft incidents happen to the best of us. It's too bad that WNforlife hasn't learned this basic lesson, and I doubt he possesses the maturity to even care.

I've done it before, and I guess I'll do it again - my apologies on behalf of WNforlife. He is by no means representative of Southwest employees.
 
hobbes said:
Dizel,

As an SWA employee, I'll tell you that WNforlife doesn't speak for me or other SWA employees on this board. He enjoys stirring the pot, and he's a constant source of embarrassment for the SWA employees on this board. Take his posts with a grain of salt - I personally question his legitimacy as an SWA employee anyway. He seems to enjoy making our airline look like a bunch of arrogant pricks.

Some of us are well aware of karma. Aircraft incidents happen to the best of us. It's too bad that WNforlife hasn't learned this basic lesson, and I doubt he possesses the maturity to even care.

I've done it before, and I guess I'll do it again - my apologies on behalf of WNforlife. He is by no means representative of Southwest employees.
[post="306404"][/post]​

This is the 7th time an Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321 has landed with this problem. JetBlue has had two of them. There are 2500 Airbus aircraft in this category and JetBlue owns 80 of them. Using the two incidents per 80 aircraft of JetBlue's you find one incident per 40 aircraft. The industry average for the rest of this fleet works out to 1 in 484. It appears to be a JetBlue problem.


Besides that, the A320 has had a lot more problems that the 737..............

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/national/23plane.html
http://www.ckdhr.com/hrose/no-more-nw.html
http://travel.canoe.ca/Travel/News/2005/08...1186756-ap.html
 
WNrforlife said:
Besides that, the A320 has had a lot more problems that the 737..............

[post="307049"][/post]​


:rolleyes: Surely you can come up with better info than this to support your claim? rec.travel.air postings? Thats like the yahoo of travel message boards. I was there for a short time, but couldnt stand it because of postings like the one you cited... :p
 
WNrforlife said:

Another weak post from Wnforlife. The facts are that both the 737 and the A320 are very safe aircraft. I seriously doubt WNforlife understands the ramifications of having a rudder hard over. The next generation 737's supposedly have a fix for the faulty sytem however the 2,3,4,500 series do not. The 2,3,4,500 series do have a rudder pressure reducer sytem that works at approximately 800 feet. What happens if you have a rudder event below these altitudes? Not good.
 
WNrforlife said:
This is the 7th time an Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321 has landed with this problem. JetBlue has had two of them. There are 2500 Airbus aircraft in this category and JetBlue owns 80 of them. Using the two incidents per 80 aircraft of JetBlue's you find one incident per 40 aircraft. The industry average for the rest of this fleet works out to 1 in 484. It appears to be a JetBlue problem.
Besides that, the A320 has had a lot more problems that the 737..............

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/national/23plane.html
http://www.ckdhr.com/hrose/no-more-nw.html
http://travel.canoe.ca/Travel/News/2005/08...1186756-ap.html
[post="307049"][/post]​


Is that your version of statistical sampling? "It appears to be a Jebtlue problem?" Are you for real?
 
Farley said:
Is that your version of statistical sampling? "It appears to be a Jebtlue problem?" Are you for real?
[post="307064"][/post]​

Statistically, it does appear to be a JetBlue problem, especially if the malfunction of the nosegear is caused by inadequate maintenance procedures.

Yes, I am for real.
 
WNrforlife said:
Statistically, it does appear to be a JetBlue problem, especially if the malfunction of the nosegear is caused by inadequate maintenance procedures.

Yes, I am for real.
[post="307285"][/post]​
Inadequate maintence is not just a Jetblue problem, It's the WHOLE Airline Industries Problem..
 

Latest posts