JetBlue Flight Makes Emergency Landing
Wednesday, September 21, 2005

"¢JetBlue Airways
LOS ANGELES "” A JetBlue airliner with its front landing gear stuck sideways landed safely Wednesday, balancing on its back wheels as it slowed on the runway at Los Angeles International Airport.

As the front wheels touched the runway, flames shot along the tarmac and the tires tore off, leaving the metal gear scraping the runway for the final few yards.

The pilots of Flight 292 had discovered the problem as they tried to retract the plane's landing gear shortly after leaving Burbank's Bob Hope Airport bound for New York, said JetBlue spokesman Bryan Baldwin.

With 139 passengers on board, the plane circled the Los Angeles area for three hours as the pilots burned off fuel and officials tried to determine how to bring the plane in safely.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Donn Walker said the Airbus A320 burned off fuel to lighten the plane for landing.

The plane first circled the Long Beach Airport, about 30 miles south of Burbank, then was cleared to land at Los Angeles, said LAX spokeswoman Nancy Castles.

Baldwin said the pilots had reported a landing gear indication light on shortly after takeoff at 3:17 p.m. The plane landed about 6:20 p.m.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170076,00.html

A well-executed emergency landing


Is there something you want to know about air travel? Send Captain Meryl Getline an e-mail, and she may publish it in an upcoming column. By e-mailing her (include your name and town), you are agreeing to have your question shared.
This week, after watching the JetBlue Airbus with the gear problem land safely at Los Angeles International Airport, I went through pretty much the same emotions as everyone else, judging by the volume and content of the letters I received immediately afterward. It is always such a relief to see what could have been a much more serious incident turn into a thing of beauty, from the superb airmanship of the pilots to the decision to not evacuate the airplane unnecessarily.

Evacuation frequently results in some bruises and even sprains or broken bones; when something this scary happens it's often anticipated that the emergency slides will be deployed. It was a big relief to me personally when they were not. I believe the crew is to be lauded for choosing not to deploy the slides "” it was such a tense situation that you can imagine all anybody wanted was to get out, but the crew kept their wits about them.

Instead of selecting just one question, I've chosen four of the most common ones I received pertaining to the JetBlue incident. I can't answer specifics as the official findings won't be in for some time, but I can make some general observations.

Question 1:

I was wondering if you could comment on the recent emergency landing of the JetBlue flight at LAX. Were you surprised the nose gear stayed on, and why did they choose to land with wheels down on a cement runway vs. wheels up on a salt-flat or other "softer" area? It sure looked tricky, but do pilots train for just such a scenario in a flight simulator? As a bigger question, what sort of emergency procedures do you routinely practice? I'm sure there are any number of things that could go wrong, so how do your trainers know which areas to focus on during your emergency training?

"” John Eschelbach, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Answer 1:

I wasn't necessarily surprised the nose gear didn't collapse, but I certainly was relieved. Had the pilot let the nose drop too hard onto the runway the outcome could have been different. However, he did a nice job holding it off just above the runway and gently lowering it when he had to. When the airspeed drops below a certain point, the airplane is simply done flying and there is no choice but to put the nose gear down. On all normal landings we put the main gear down first, followed by the nose gear, but it's not necessarily desirable to hold the nose off as long as possible as was necessary in this situation.

A soft surface and wheels up landing as you suggested was not a viable alternative and, as you saw, there was no reason at all to even want to land wheels up with damage to the airplane (and possibly the people inside) inevitable. A soft surface is not an advantage. We want to land on a hard surface as close to normally as possible. Also, keep in mind that the gear wouldn't come up anyway with the nose gear canted sideways.

Although this exact scenario is not one I've seen practiced in the simulator, we do practice scenarios where we know there might be a problem with the nose gear and want to hold it off (keep the nose gear from touching down) as long as possible. We also practice nose-wheel collapses and other scenarios where an evacuation is necessary to give us a chance to experience and practice those as well. There is a checklist readily available to us for just such situations. It takes just a few moments to run through it, and then the pilots will proceed to the cabin to assist in an evacuation if the situation warrants.

Simulator training tends to focus on situations that have happened in real life such as hydraulic failures, engine failures and other engine problems, decompressions requiring the use of oxygen, etc. The good news is that even though such events can be serious, statistically they rarely happen. However, if and when they do happen, we have to be prepared for them.

Question 2:

I just read your article on the dumping of fuel and am curious to know why Airbus would build a plane that was not capable of dumping fuel. What is the downside of having this option? Doesn't it seem like a safety hazard?

"” Ellen Leikind, New York, N.Y.

Answer 2:

Since the Jet Blue incident, many people have written to me expressing dismay that Airbus doesn't have fuel dumping capability. This isn't something exclusive to Airbus. There is no fuel dump capability on many smaller airplanes produced by other manufacturers. Larger planes, such as the A-340, DC-10 and the B-777, which can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel, have fuel jettison (dump) capabilities.

Whether or not an airplane dumps fuel is actually a function of FAA regulations. It relates to a requirement that an aircraft have specific climb capabilities even with an engine out (here's a link to the FAA website concerning fuel jettisoning). Even though the JetBlue situation was dramatic and tense for the crew and passengers, relatively speaking it didn't take that long to burn off the fuel until the captain was comfortable enough with the weight to land.

As a pilot, I don't consider it a hazard to not be able to dump fuel. The downside of not being able to dump fuel is the potential inconvenience, as was the case in the JetBlue incident, to have to take some time to burn off the fuel instead of being able to simply dump it. It is important to note than in a situation where an immediate landing is necessary, airplanes are quite capable of landing overweight. It simply wasn't the best choice in this case.

Apparently, the motive for burning off the extra fuel wasn't all that obvious to non-pilots. The primary reason to burn off the extra fuel was that a heavier plane has a faster landing speed. Since a slower airspeed on landing was the objective in this case, the course of action was to lighten the load by burning off some fuel and when landing, lower the nose gear at as slow an airspeed as possible. The pilot accomplished all of this.

Question 3:

From videos I have seen of the landing, it appears that the runway was not covered with flame suppressing foam before the JetBlue A320 with a jammed nose gear landed at LAX. Can you tell me why the ground emergency crews would not have used foam to guard against a possible fire? By the way, it looked to me like the pilot did a superb job of bringing the aircraft in safely. What's your assessment?

"” Greg Huwe, Minneapolis, Minn.

Answer 3:

Foam is no longer routinely used in emergency landings. Although foam is a protectant against fire, it can also cause the runway to become quite slippery. If you watched this event on TV, you saw the emergency crews right there ready to put a fire out. Fortunately, this wasn't necessary.

My personal assessment? JetBlue should be proud of their pilots and we should all be grateful to the highly-trained but mostly unsung emergency crews for always being there for us if and when we need them.

Question 4:

Why did the JetBlue flight not proceed to NY after learning that its nose gear was a problem? They had to burn off the fuel anyway, so why not go on to the destination? Surely the airports in NY can handle an emergency as well as LAX. I'm sure there's a good reason, and I'm just curious.

Amazing feat, that.

"” Roger Bullard, Wilson, N.C.

Answer 4:

Lots of people wondered about this and you're right "” there's a very good reason. It sounds logical, but continuing to New York was not an option at all. The gear was stuck down, and this is obviously a major problem. All a pilot wants to do is deal with the problem and put the airplane down in the most efficient and safe manner possible. With LAX right there, it was the logical choice for an emergency landing with its long runways and superb emergency capabilities.

Although it was inconvenient and tense to have to fly around and burn off fuel, I believe any pilot would have made exactly the same choice. It is likely the crew was in radio communication with their airline and a joint decision was agreed upon by their dispatchers, maintenance personnel and crew. I am not familiar with JetBlue's specific policies and procedures, but it's common airline practice for the captain to consult with other appropriate departments within the airline when an unusual situation arises.

There are practical reasons for deciding not to have continued to New York, and they're big ones. For instance, with the gear down on any commercial airplane, there is a speed restriction of no more than 250 knots, and it's slower on some airplanes. Planes with retractable gear are not designed to fly to their destinations with their gear hanging out.

Let's say for argument's sake you really, really wanted to continue to New York even with your gear out. Jets are designed to fly at cruise altitudes of around 30,000 to 40,000 feet or so. They have to be aerodynamically clean to attain these altitudes and if there's anything that puts drag on an airplane, it's the landing gear. You could never fly that slowly at cruise altitude with that much drag. The plane couldn't even reach cruise altitude.

This is not to say that there couldn't be a situation with a potential problem on landing where the pilot might decide it's better to continue. I had just such a situation myself years ago. On takeoff, we heard a loud thump and thought we might have blown a tire. The airport, a relatively small one, could have handled an emergency landing, but after discussing it with our airline, we decided to continue. Why? Unlike the craft in the JetBlue incident, our gear retracted just fine and the airplane was fit to fly. The emergency availability was better at our destination, as was the maintenance capability. There was no downside to continuing and there were obvious downsides in returning to the airport we'd just left in terms of dumping or burning off fuel, inconvenience to all on board, etc. So we continued and after a fly-by at the destination established all our tires were fine, we were able to land without incident.

Read previous columns

Meryl Getline is a captain for United Airlines, author of the award-winning book The World at My Feet and a keynote speaker for corporate and other gatherings. She also publishes her own websites, fromthecockpit.com and flyingfearless.com. All opinions expressed in this column are exclusively those of Capt. Meryl Getline. United Airlines neither contributes to nor endorses this column. If you have a question, send it to her at travel@usatoday.com, acknowledging she may use it in a future column.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-09-26-column_x.htm