Plane emergency landing
Sep 21st, 2005, 05:45 PM
#61
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rkkwan - I would hardly call this a non-event. Thousands of people fly everyday and it could happen to anyone of us, especially people on this forum who travel so much. In fact the TV station I am listening to was just discussing how travelers should feel reasurred particularly with the heavy travel holiday season coming upon us.
I don't have any doubt that landing problems are more prevelant than we like to think but it's nice to see things turn out so good insteaad of only hearing about tragedies. Considering that this event could have turned out very different, I think your comments are a little insensitive.
I don't have any doubt that landing problems are more prevelant than we like to think but it's nice to see things turn out so good insteaad of only hearing about tragedies. Considering that this event could have turned out very different, I think your comments are a little insensitive.
Sep 21st, 2005, 06:16 PM
#68
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had just gotten home when my neighbor called to me and consequently saw the landing on her TV. Fantastic landing..imagine what the pilot was going through along with the rest of the crew and the poor passengers. Thank goodness everything turned out so well. I was horrified also.
Sep 21st, 2005, 06:57 PM
#69
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, I did watch it online on a KABC7 feed. It was really smooth and well done by the crew. Two big thumbs up. I think people interested in airlines and aircrafts (like me) would be very interested. But like the reporter says, they've been following the news since 4pm EST - which is like 3 hours watching the plane circle around to burn fuel? Please!
P_M: I'm going to stay put here, even though some of my Houston relatives decide to leave town. Traffic is terrible trying to get out now anyways. One of my cousin leaves in Lake Jackson, and they're smart to have left for Austin early this morning. [We also have family in Austin and Dallas.]
P_M: I'm going to stay put here, even though some of my Houston relatives decide to leave town. Traffic is terrible trying to get out now anyways. One of my cousin leaves in Lake Jackson, and they're smart to have left for Austin early this morning. [We also have family in Austin and Dallas.]
Sep 22nd, 2005, 04:11 AM
#72
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"we're flying JetBlue to NY in less than 2 weeks. I don't know whether to feel encouraged or worried."
If that one pilot's performance is any indication of the quality of the rest of their flight crews, I'd say feel encouraged, big time.
If that one pilot's performance is any indication of the quality of the rest of their flight crews, I'd say feel encouraged, big time.
Sep 22nd, 2005, 07:24 AM
#74
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of also being labeled "insensitive", I think these pilots made a well-executed soft-field landing but did nothing more than would be expected of a professional flight crew. On a scale of danger from 1-10, this landing was about a 2 0r 3, assuming the nose wheel did not collapse. Other than doing the soft field landing well, the pilot's had no control over whether or not it collapsed.
The real credit should be given to the aircraft designers who created a nose gear assembly capable of withstanding the tremendous forces applied to it once the tires burned off.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the pilots - they did an excellent job. It was just not an exceptional job nor one that you would not routinely expect them to make.
The real credit should be given to the aircraft designers who created a nose gear assembly capable of withstanding the tremendous forces applied to it once the tires burned off.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the pilots - they did an excellent job. It was just not an exceptional job nor one that you would not routinely expect them to make.
Sep 22nd, 2005, 07:28 AM
#75
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew that the pilots would get the plane down safely and without anyone getting hurt. However, the news media latched onto this as a dire "EVERYBODY ON THE PLANE IS DOOMED I TELL YOU!! DOOMED!!! MWU-AHH-HAA-HAA-HAA-HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!" event-- especially the news radio announcers. Their ad-lib patter started getting embarassing-- "Well, maybe a wing will fall off while they land! Or they'll hit something and do that cartwheel thing like in Iowa!! C'mon, I'm not gonna lose a Golden Mike to that 'Farm Report' jerk again...!"
I got two phone calls about it before I left work yesterday, and what I was hearing told me the newspeople were spreading egregious misinformation-- status quo these days.
I've flown JetBlue numerous times. In fact, I'm flying them tomorrow to JFK (out of LGB and their long, long runway, thank you very much!
) and have the utmost confidence in their skill and safety. I saw the plane line up for landing as I drove home last night-- although a bit slower than the usual approach, it looked glass-smooth from a distance (it was over Norwalk, I was on I-405 in Carson).
JetBlue ROCKS!!!!
I got two phone calls about it before I left work yesterday, and what I was hearing told me the newspeople were spreading egregious misinformation-- status quo these days.
I've flown JetBlue numerous times. In fact, I'm flying them tomorrow to JFK (out of LGB and their long, long runway, thank you very much!
) and have the utmost confidence in their skill and safety. I saw the plane line up for landing as I drove home last night-- although a bit slower than the usual approach, it looked glass-smooth from a distance (it was over Norwalk, I was on I-405 in Carson).JetBlue ROCKS!!!!
Sep 22nd, 2005, 07:34 AM
#76
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'm glad everyone is safe, but I have a couple of questions about the event.
If the plane was Los Angeles to NYC, why not have the emergency landing there. The passengers wanted to get to NYC, instead of flying lap after lap over the Pacific and now have to fly again to make it to the original destination.
And if you're going to stay in the Los Angeles area for the emergency landing, why LAX? Isn't it the busiest airport in the area? How many other flights were impacted because of the JetBlue flight? I assume all airports have emergency landing procedures so why go to LAX?
If the plane was Los Angeles to NYC, why not have the emergency landing there. The passengers wanted to get to NYC, instead of flying lap after lap over the Pacific and now have to fly again to make it to the original destination.
And if you're going to stay in the Los Angeles area for the emergency landing, why LAX? Isn't it the busiest airport in the area? How many other flights were impacted because of the JetBlue flight? I assume all airports have emergency landing procedures so why go to LAX?
Sep 22nd, 2005, 07:40 AM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
ncgirl, they had to use up the majority of their fuel; emergency procedure that they were following is why they were put in a holding pattern over the Pacific.
Also, just one tower was giving them directions and emergency procedure protocol. They would have had to switch towers all the way across the US otherwise.
The larger airports (LAX) have the emergency equipment in place, have better access for the emergency vehicles, quicker access to major hospitals, and most importantly; the longest runway.
Much better to circle over the Pacific than try and make it cross country. It was controlled this way otherwise what if they'd had to make a last minute emergency over Kansas? This way they had three hours to divert other planes from LAX.
Also, just one tower was giving them directions and emergency procedure protocol. They would have had to switch towers all the way across the US otherwise.
The larger airports (LAX) have the emergency equipment in place, have better access for the emergency vehicles, quicker access to major hospitals, and most importantly; the longest runway.
Much better to circle over the Pacific than try and make it cross country. It was controlled this way otherwise what if they'd had to make a last minute emergency over Kansas? This way they had three hours to divert other planes from LAX.
Sep 22nd, 2005, 07:48 AM
#78
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ncgrrl - Do you remember (or know about) the critism British Airways got for flying a 747 with 3 engines all the way from LA to London? Even though the situation is a little different, the bad press will be tremendous.
Also, it's not like they just circle LA for nothing. During that time in a holding pattern, the pilots can go through all the procedures with the company's technical staff (and perhaps even Airbus), the emergency personnel on the ground, etc; and by flying low circling, they can also have spotters on ground to visually inspect the landing gear with telescopes.
A lot is going on there.
Also, it's not like they just circle LA for nothing. During that time in a holding pattern, the pilots can go through all the procedures with the company's technical staff (and perhaps even Airbus), the emergency personnel on the ground, etc; and by flying low circling, they can also have spotters on ground to visually inspect the landing gear with telescopes.
A lot is going on there.
Sep 22nd, 2005, 07:53 AM
#79
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, looks like GoTravel posted basically the same info as I did the same time.
But let me add that it's not a "must" to go to LAX. For example, I'd think if this is an American Arlines flight, they may fly the plane to DFW, or DL to SLC, or UA to DEN. At those hubs the airline will have very good communication with the emergency crew on ground, and all those airports have very long runways far from any structure.
But for Jetblue, LAX would make the most sense.
But let me add that it's not a "must" to go to LAX. For example, I'd think if this is an American Arlines flight, they may fly the plane to DFW, or DL to SLC, or UA to DEN. At those hubs the airline will have very good communication with the emergency crew on ground, and all those airports have very long runways far from any structure.
But for Jetblue, LAX would make the most sense.
Sep 22nd, 2005, 08:25 AM
#80
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind as well that the nose gear was stuck down as well as twisted, changing the plane's aerodynamics and making it smarter to not go long distances. As it was, it flew around over Catalina in "dirty" configuration (landing gear deployed, flaps extended) and at low altitude to burn fuel quickly.
LAX was an obvious choice because it has four active runways, the longest of which (25 Right) is over 12,000 feet long. The only other area airport seriously considered was LGB due to its 10,000 foot main runway (BUR having relatively short runways); in fact, emergency vehicles were standing by at LGB in the event they decided to go there. However, LAX didn't make any changes to their traffic until just before the Airbus decided to land. I saw dozens of planes land and take off between the time I left my office and the time I saw the A320 line up for landing.
LAX was an obvious choice because it has four active runways, the longest of which (25 Right) is over 12,000 feet long. The only other area airport seriously considered was LGB due to its 10,000 foot main runway (BUR having relatively short runways); in fact, emergency vehicles were standing by at LGB in the event they decided to go there. However, LAX didn't make any changes to their traffic until just before the Airbus decided to land. I saw dozens of planes land and take off between the time I left my office and the time I saw the A320 line up for landing.
