rjw, I was watching the television coverage. Here in San Diego, we had a feed from an LA station sometimes with their news people and sometimes with the San Diego people. None of them were making it sound like plane of doom. In fact, they had two commercial pilots on the phone almost all the time who both talked about how pilots train for this all the time and it's not a very big deal.

The FAA decided where they would go and LAX was chosen because they have more than one runway and the most safety equipment. If the plane had landed at Long each, which was one of the options, the one runway would have been out of use for some time, ensuring that all the other traffic coming in to or leaving would be very much delayed.

The other airports that were considered all have emergency equipment, are easily accessible and are close to hospitals and have long enough runways,but they don't have multiple runways.

Hey, Barbara!

I'm glad the TV coverage you saw was calm. The radio stations I was listening to in my car had their announcers blathering on and on like idiots, saying the most ill-informed drivel I've heard in a while.

The plane had been in regular contact with both LAX and LGB (where JetBlue's operations are headquartered on the West Coast), and obviously had they gone into LGB 12/30 (the long runway) would have been out of pocket for a while. The next-longest runway (believe it or not, there are 5 at LGB) is only 6200 feet long, but they do run commercial flights on it occasionally, so they would have had a backup (but boy do they slam on the brakes when they land on that one!). Since LGB handles UPS and FedEx jumbos, that isn't the ideal option, but.... After 6, they tend to cluster takeoffs and landings at LGB-- long stretches of nothing, then several jets 2 minutes apart, then nothing, then....

Can you tell Long Beach is an aerospace industry town?

My honey's father used to work at McDonnell-Douglas-- and he thinks that ground crew left a towing pin (used to pull/push the plane into/out of its gate or parking place) in the nose gear at BUR. Sounds plausible....

Good reasons for staying in the area. I don't know that much about aviation and emergency procedures. I didn't watch it on tv last night so I wasn't clued into the second-by-second update of information.

As I was nervously watching this last night all I could think about was:

Imagine being on that plane with a child or baby in your lap, having been to cheap to buy him or her a seat.

Having flown Jet Blue outbound from OAK to IAD on Tuesday and planning to to return to OAK next week, I'm thankful for anyone--designers,pilots, etc. who contributed to that spectacular safe landing.

This was our first JB flight, and the whole process was smooth from the time I made our reservations until we stepped off the plane. Their employees definitely are immersed in a service mentality, which is very refreshing in comparison to some of the majors.

One other reason they did not go into Long Beach (despite having a maintenance base there) was the fact that there are many buildings along the sides of the runway as opposed to the runway they used at LAx which was a bit longer and not any bldgs. so close by. I watched this on t.v. in LA Area and I didn't feel the commentators were overreacting on the station I watched. They had pilots on with them and they were mostly giving postitive informations and said they felt the landing would be perfect n the end. They constantly said how well the pilots are trained for emergencies and it is obvious that is true as these pilots did a great job. Naturally it was news as this was a unique situation - you rarely see the landing gear at a 90 degree angle. Thankfully they are all safe and sound.

I thought it was interesting that JetBlue has personal viewers that were actually showing the passengers the news coverage while they were in the air. That's kind of frightening.

I was visiting my daughter at Georgia Tech last night and so happened to see this. We were walking through the student center and there was a lounge full of students, eating, drinking and watching a potential crash on a big-screen t.v. No one seemed even slightly discomfited by the coverage. I was appalled, both at the sheer awfulness of it and the nonchalance with which it was being watched. Had there been a crash, I'm sure some obnoxious reporter would have rushed up to a survivor or found a family member, stuck a microphone in his face and demanded to know "how do you feel about this?"

I'll add this as reason 459b why we do not own a television.

Not to put too blasé a face on this serious incident (mechanical malfunctions are indeed serious), but the chances of a "crash" were almost nil. There was nothing wrong with the engines or controls-- it was the nosegear. Remember also that the underbelly of a jetliner is reinforced for the worst case of a gear-less belly-landing. Also bear in mind that pilots get training in simulators to handle these types of situations above and beyond their actual hours in the air on various types of planes. Even if this pilot had executed a rougher landing, the outcome would have been the same: Plane stops, no one is hurt.

Landing gear problems are not a daily occurrence, but they happen, and most everyone walks away just like these people did. Had they had to "do the slide" evacuation, you might have seen some twisted ankles. But that's usually the worst injury in these situations.

I had no idea it would be a non-event, and I'm sure those students didn't either. Well, maybe they did, they're engineering students. Still, their apathy was appalling.

The plane flew around for hours efore landing and while it was flying around, using up fuel, there was no chance of anything happenig and, really, it was pretty boring to watch. I don't know why every media outlet did show it live for all that time. Certainly, it would have been good to cut back to it when the pilot decided to land, but otherwise I can fully understand why the students weren't giving it much attention.

The crash position for lap children is to be held on the floor between the parents legs. This is to try and keep lap child from becoming projectile and injuring passenger not because it is safe for the child.

There is no safe position for a child unless it is in its own seat restrained.

If you tried to hold the child in your arms, you would end up crushing it to death (think human airbag).

Reason #427 the FAA should ban lap children.

"Reason #427 the FAA should ban lap children."

Wouldn't it be easier if they just banned children all together??

Only joking folks, don't get too excited!

Excuse me, but does every single plane incident has to become a discussion about child on lap?

This plane has not hit turbulence, has a smoother landing than if it has a normal landing gear, and nobody - including babies - are hurt.

I agree with Patrick. Just ban babies. Have you heard them cry on a plane? That means they're being totured. State childcare agencies should be arresting parents taking babies on board, with or without a seat... Jeez!

rkkwan, do a search on google for the proper crash position for a lap child.

Also, in many survivable crashes, lap children are listed as non-survivors.

Look at the United Crash in Sioux City.

Well, yes Patrick but what can one do???


:-D

GoTravel - I don't disagree with you about safety. But does every single thread about any plane incident that requires emergency procedure has to become a discussion about child on lap? That's my real question. Sorry about my sacasm.

The first time I brought my children on a plane, they were 8 and 11 years old. I guess my thinking always was that if I can't afford to buy them a seat then I shouldn't be taking them. I agree that if there's a survivable crash that the child would most likely get crushed between myself and the seat in front of me, or in my seatbelt. I think the life of a child is worth more than the price of buying them their own seat and belting them in appropriately. I bet those survivable crashes with surviving parents that lost their children are regretting not spending the money. But that's just my opinion.

rkkwan, usually LOL!

In all seriousness, I have personal reasons why I'm a bulldog about lap children.

One of the minor reasons was a horribly turbulent flight sitting next to parents of a lap children and the terror of both the mother and father because the father could just barely hold the child.

The sad thing is that the parents weren't being cheap, they had incorrectly assumed because they didn't have to purchase a seat, the child would be safe without one!

Parents should be told, and they are not, that the FAA highly recommends you purchase a seat for your infant to be used with an approved safety seat but doesn't require you to because of some bullshit idea that if they make you, you'll drive instead of fly. If you drive, your chances of getting in a fatal wreck are higher than if you fly.