After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the Jet
Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency Airworthiness
Directive on the Airbus A320?

Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them until
they've been repaired?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the Jet
> Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency Airworthiness
> Directive on the Airbus A320?
>
> Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
until
> they've been repaired?
> --

Why should they ground them ? It's just a few sparks, no big deal. These
planes have to work for a living and can't sit around waiting for some FAA
pencil pusher. Maybe they can get some mechanics in a truck to drive down
the runway under the plane and twist them back into alignment next time it
happens.

As long as it's mis-aligned by 90 degrees, it's maybe not a serious
hazard.

I don't know what the odds are, but it seems to me that having the nose
gear locked at 20 degrees off would be a significant hazard..

Because they are still airworthy, just not ground worthy. : -)

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Jimmy wrote:
> > After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the Jet
> > Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency Airworthiness
> > Directive on the Airbus A320?
> >
> > Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
> until
> > they've been repaired?
> > --
>
> Why should they ground them ? It's just a few sparks, no big deal. These
> planes have to work for a living and can't sit around waiting for some FAA
> pencil pusher. Maybe they can get some mechanics in a truck to drive down
> the runway under the plane and twist them back into alignment next time it
> happens.

The FAA has its hands full with the NWA replacement mechanics. Dead
birds
left in engines and engine flames on T.O. are becoming a frequent
occurance.

JG

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the
> Jet Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency
> Airworthiness Directive on the Airbus A320?
>
> Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
> until they've been repaired?

They did issue one. A number of the earlier incidents were because an O
ring became distorted. The French version of the FAA had issued a
maintenance instruction requiring replacement of the ring, and the FAA
eventually did the same. They probably thought that solved the problem.

There are also apparently a couple of causes: One is the O ring, and the
other is incorrect reassembly of the gear by maintenance forces. They
probably thought both were fixed.

As far as grounding the A320, then you would also have to ground the
A318, A319, and A321, since they have essentially the same gear. You
might also have to ground the other Airbus models, since the gear is
made by the same company, and might have similar design deficiencies.

While were at it, why didn't the FAA ground the middle vintage 737s when
they had two fatal accidents from suspected rudder reversals, plus a
couple of rudder control incidents reported by other airlines while in
flight? At least the A320 nose gear problem hasn't yet resulted in any
fatalities.

Third time in US per NTSB. Airbus has a Service Bulletin on replacing
some seals.
http://www.avionnewspaper.com/media/paper798/news/2005/09/27/Aeronautica/Jetblue.Landing.Problem.May.Be.Attributed.To.A320. Flaw-998481.shtml

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:7if1f.405652$_o.77499@attbi_s71...
> After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the
> Jet Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency
> Airworthiness Directive on the Airbus A320?
>
> Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
> until they've been repaired?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Jay,
one simple reason.
no one has been killed yet. A little sick but that is the way they operate.
Michelle

Jay Honeck wrote:

>After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the Jet
>Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency Airworthiness
>Directive on the Airbus A320?
>
>Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them until
>they've been repaired?
>
>

Not yet...

The need some dead civilians first......

Sorry....

Dave

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:54:43 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>After seven (?) incidents of landing gear malfunctions similar to the Jet
>Blue incident, why has the FAA not issued an emergency Airworthiness
>Directive on the Airbus A320?
>
>Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them until
>they've been repaired?

> While were at it, why didn't the FAA ground the middle vintage 737s when
> they had two fatal accidents from suspected rudder reversals, plus a
> couple of rudder control incidents reported by other airlines while in
> flight? At least the A320 nose gear problem hasn't yet resulted in any
> fatalities.

I followed the 737 rudder reversals with great interest. The reason the FAA
did not ground the fleet was quite simply that they could not duplicate the
problem for some time. It took some pretty extreme environmental
manipulation (extreme cold, moisture, etc.) before anyone could actually
make the actuator in the 737 malfunction the way the flight data recorders
were apparently reporting.

Once they *were* able to duplicate the rudder problem, the AD came
immediately, and the fix was pretty urgent.

But that still doesn't answer the question. If this known nose gear
malfunction was happening on, say, Beech Bonanzas, the whole fleet would be
grounded in a heartbeat. Yet it's happening to a commonly used airliner,
and nothing much seems to be happening.

Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
the Europeans right now?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>>>>But that still doesn't answer the question. If this known nose gear
malfunction was happening on, say, Beech Bonanzas, the whole fleet
would be
grounded in a heartbeat. Yet it's happening to a commonly used
airliner,
and nothing much seems to be happening.>>>>

The FAA didn't put an AD on the Bonanza tail until 350 (and decades)
of them disintegrated in flight. Then it was only because the president
of the Bonanza society, a big Beech defender, was killed that Beech got
off their butt and fixed the tail.

At the same time, King Air wings were falling off at an alarming rate
and Beech and the FAA did virtually NOTHING to solve that as well. It
took a private company to produce a wing strap for the KA to finally
embarrass Beech into fixing the King Air.

The new King Air wing is held on by bolts in shear. The old (pre about
1984)by bolts in tension. FAA did NOTHING!

The FAA is not necessarily going to do anything to promote safety in
aviation. They never have. It's ALWAYS private enterprise that fixes
the real problems!

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
> the Europeans right now?

The current US government is doing everything they can to offend the
Europeans right now, so this can't be the reason. I suspect the reason
is that, despite all the television hype, there has never actually been
any real danger for the passengers.

Stefan

In article . com>,
says...

>
>At the same time, King Air wings were falling off at an alarming rate
>and Beech and the FAA did virtually NOTHING to solve that as well. It
>took a private company to produce a wing strap for the KA to finally
>embarrass Beech into fixing the King Air.
>

KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?
Why am I skeptical about this? Could it be because a database search of
the NTSB from 1962 to present, using several different keyword
combinations produced 0 records of such incidents? Or the Google search,
showing C-130's wings falling off, but not KingAirs?

Can you point us to evidence sufficient to warrant the insinuation that
grounding the entire fleet of KingAirs would have been an appropriate
move?

G Faris

In article >, says...
>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
>> the Europeans right now?
>
>The current US government is doing everything they can to offend the
>Europeans right now, so this can't be the reason. I suspect the reason
>is that, despite all the television hype, there has never actually been
>any real danger for the passengers.
>

Both of thes assertions are flawed. The current trade dispute between Boeing
and Airbus could just as well be viewed as the Europeans offending the
Americans. Boeing's arguments are certainly clearer in the debate (which is
not to say they are indisputably correct). As for danger to passengers - the
Jet Blue landing at LAX was highly irregular, to say the least. We can be
relieved that it came off well, but to assert from this that there was never
any danger is a huge leap of faith.

I cannot pretend to know how the regulatory authorities, American and
European are handling the matter, but you can be sure they are not ignoring
it. If they are convinced the manufacturer is ready to publish a remedy, then
perhaps an emergency AD would not be the most expeditious approach. You can
find many examples on both sides - where they did/did not/should have etc -
this should not be taken to criticize them for making a good call every now
and then.

G Faris

>> Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
>> the Europeans right now?
>
> The current US government is doing everything they can to offend the
> Europeans right now, so this can't be the reason. I suspect the reason is
> that, despite all the television hype, there has never actually been any
> real danger for the passengers.

Landing an airliner with the nose gear 90 degrees misaligned poses no danger
to passengers?

That's a stunning statement, coming from a presumed pilot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

> That's a stunning statement, coming from a presumed pilot.

Flying *is* a stunning thing.

Stefan

Greg Farris wrote:

> In article . com>,
> says...
>
>>At the same time, King Air wings were falling off at an alarming rate
>>and Beech and the FAA did virtually NOTHING to solve that as well. It
>>took a private company to produce a wing strap for the KA to finally
>>embarrass Beech into fixing the King Air.
>
> KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?

I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
at the time.

(-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to
start with a large fortune."
-- Unknown

In article >, says...
>

>>
>> KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?
>
>I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
>at the time.
>
>(-:


LOL - My thoughts exactly!
Just one is pretty alarming if it involves you directly!

GF

If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
> at the time.
>

In article <Kov1f.10$Tn5.3@trnddc08>, says...
>
>
>If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.
>

You know her then?!!

sfb wrote:

> If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.
>
> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
>>at the time.

My mother-in-law is afraid of flying, so I don't have to worry about her
wings falling off. Now if we were talking about misplacing marbles...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"The software isn't finished until the last user is dead."
-- Unknown

n

>>>>KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?<<< Because you don't
>>>>have any King Air experience???


>>>>Could it be because a database search of the NTSB from 1962 to present,
>>>>using several different keyword combinations produced 0 records of such
>>>>incidents?<<<< Ever hear of the "world?"


>>>>Or the Google search, showing C-130's wings falling off, but not
>>>>KingAirs? <<<<< You should learn how to "Google!" This is the company
>>>>that solved the problem after at least 5 King Airs had their wings fall
>>>>off:

http://www.nationalflight.com/aviadesigns.htm


>>>>Can you point us to evidence sufficient to warrant the insinuation
>>>><<<<<< Do your own homework!


Karl
ATP----BE-300, CE-500, Lear Jet, DA-50

In article >,
says...
>
>
>>>>>KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?<<< Because you don't
>>>>>have any King Air experience???


Not that type anyway!!


>
>
>>>>>Could it be because a database search of the NTSB from 1962 to present,
>>>>>using several different keyword combinations produced 0 records of such
>>>>>incidents?<<<< Ever hear of the "world?"

Full-time resident!
That's the place where the NTSB conducts accident reports for
all US-maunfactured aircraft, isn't it?


>
>
>>>>>Or the Google search, showing C-130's wings falling off, but not
>>>>>KingAirs? <<<<< You should learn how to "Google!" This is the company
>>>>>that solved the problem after at least 5 King Airs had their wings fall
>>>>>off:
>
>http://www.nationalflight.com/aviadesigns.htm

Homework done. Commercial product found for sale.
The redundant load path may have as much to do with transport regulations as
actual accidents. More database searches - still 0.

If you know of five such accidents, perhaps you could show us one or two.
Then we could all learn something from this.If none of these were in the US,
why would you expect the FAA to act on it?


G Faris

My Mother in Law flies a broom so she doesn't have to worry about wings
falling off! ;)

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
> sfb wrote:
>
>> If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.
>>
>> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it at
>>>the time.
>
> My mother-in-law is afraid of flying, so I don't have to worry about her
> wings falling off. Now if we were talking about misplacing marbles...
>
>
> -m
> --
> ## Mark T. Dame >
> ## VP, Product Development
> ## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
> "The software isn't finished until the last user is dead."
> -- Unknown

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
> the Europeans right now?

I doubt it. As you said, once they were able to duplicate the rudder problem
with the 737, "the fix was pretty urgent."

The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently nobody
has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD yet. I expect
that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to ground the entire Airbus
fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct that they will not take that step
unless somebody is killed in one of these incidents.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

sfb wrote:

> If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.

Actually, I like my mother-in-law. Now, my *wife's* mother-in-law we could do
without.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

> The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
> nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
> yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
> ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
> that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
> these incidents.

That's dumb.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote:

> The FAA has its hands full with the NWA replacement mechanics. Dead
> birds
> left in engines and engine flames on T.O. are becoming a frequent
> occurance.
>
> JG
What problems are the FAA having with NWA replacement mechanics? FYI,
most of the replacements have come from other legacy carriers such as US
Airways, United, etc. that have been laid off. They have plenty of
experience from their former jobs with those carriers. The only real
problem has been getting them accustomed to the paperwork that NWA uses.
Every airline uses different paperwork and computer tracking.

You say "dead birds", well the truth is, it was only ONE dead bird, and
it was found by the First Officer during his "routine" preflight.
Mechanics don't do preflights for every flight, they just do daily
checks, so it was the First Officer, doing exactly what he is supposed
to be doing before every flight, that found the bird.

Not sure what you are talking about with reference to the engine flames.

Setting the record straight,

BJ

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
>>nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
>>yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
>>ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
>>that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
>>these incidents.
>
> That's dumb.

They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no fix,
they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem. So far the agencies
around the world such as the FAA seems to feel that this problem is unlikely to
cause anything more than some press excitement and purchase of replacement parts
and provide a little exercise for the emergency people.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

In article <QTE1f.653$RG1.238@trndny08>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no fix,
> they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem.

otoh - they can ground the airplane (I'm saying they should).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

B. Jensen wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
> and engine flames on T.O. are becoming a frequent
>> occurance.
>>
>> JG

>
> Not sure what you are talking about with reference to the engine flames.

One airplane had an engine failure on takeoff. One. That's only
frequent if you have an ax to grind.

George Patterson wrote:


>
> They call it an "airworthiness directive" for a reason. If they have no
> fix, they can't "direct" you to do anything to fix the problem.

Sure they can. Just look at the T34.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> B. Jensen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> and engine flames on T.O. are becoming a frequent
>>
>>> occurance.
>>>
>>> JG
>
>
>>
>> Not sure what you are talking about with reference to the engine flames.
>
>
> One airplane had an engine failure on takeoff. One. That's only
> frequent if you have an ax to grind.


AMEN....expecially when you consider NWA has 1700 takeoff's per DAY. JG
obviously has an ax to grind with someone...the rest of us know that NWA
runs a very safe operation and ignore people with personal agenda's that
are trying to distort simple facts.

BJ

Jay,

In every instance that I know of where the nosewheel malfunctioned on
the Airbus, the problem was found to be HOW maintenance was performed on
the aircraft. The Airbus does NOT have a problem, some of the
technicians doing the maintenance on the Airbus do. This is why no AD
has been issued. Lots of contract maintenance is being performed these
days (overseas and domestically)...I'll let you draw your own conclusion
whether it's a good "thing" or not. We live in a "Walmart" world and
unfortunately it has spilled over to the airlines.

BJ
Airbus Captain

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>The FAA doesn't issue an AD unless someone has proposed a fix. Apparently
>>nobody has come up with a fix for the Airbus problem, so there's no AD
>>yet. I expect that the FAA feels that there is insufficient cause to
>>ground the entire Airbus fleet over this. Michelle is probably correct
>>that they will not take that step unless somebody is killed in one of
>>these incidents.
>
>
> That's dumb.

In article >,
"B. Jensen" > wrote:

> Jay,
>
> In every instance that I know of where the nosewheel malfunctioned on
> the Airbus, the problem was found to be HOW maintenance was performed on
> the aircraft. The Airbus does NOT have a problem, some of the
> technicians doing the maintenance on the Airbus do. This is why no AD
> has been issued.

There are no examples of maintenance-related ADs?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

> In every instance that I know of where the nosewheel malfunctioned on the
> Airbus, the problem was found to be HOW maintenance was performed on the
> aircraft. The Airbus does NOT have a problem, some of the technicians
> doing the maintenance on the Airbus do.

Thanks, BJ, for providing your unique perspective to the issue.

Maintenance issue or not, I'm still amazed that this can happen seven times
(supposedly; I have no way to verify that number) and the FAA has done
nothing tangible. That's just so, well, un-FAA-like.

Remember, this is the same gang that has issued three ADs on the Lycoming
O-540 in just the last 12 months. Yet they do *nothing* when an airliner
has a nosegear that doesn't deploy?

Something smells funny. Clearly the FAA is treading lightly for a reason.

My guess is that they don't want to be seen as a reason for an airline
failure. I suspect that, were the Airbuses to be grounded tomorrow, more
airlines would be in Chapter 11, given their precarious financial condition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Something smells funny.

Well, there's a different thing I think smells funny. In this group,
everybody seems to agree that journalists are idiots, because they write
about things they have no clue of. Personally, I know a lot about
gliders. I know quite a bit about light singles. But I have no clue of
the issues involved in driving an airliner. More precisely, I know
exactly one thing about driving an airliner: It's completely different
from driving a spam can. You can't just scale up. So I won't do the same
thing as the journalists and write about things I have no clue of. But
maybe, you know more than me.

Stefan

> > Something smells funny.
>
> Well, there's a different thing I think smells funny. In this group,
> everybody seems to agree that journalists are idiots, because they write
> about things they have no clue of. Personally, I know a lot about
> gliders. I know quite a bit about light singles. But I have no clue of
> the issues involved in driving an airliner. More precisely, I know
> exactly one thing about driving an airliner: It's completely different
> from driving a spam can. You can't just scale up. So I won't do the same
> thing as the journalists and write about things I have no clue of. But
> maybe, you know more than me.

The main difference (from the FAA's standpoint) is that every time an
airliner takes off, hundreds of lives are at stake. On the other hand,
when *you* take off in your spam can, you're no real threat to anyone
but yourself and (at most) a few passengers.

Why or how this translates into a more lenient attitude toward airline
aircraft maintenance is the question. As always, it's probably a
"follow the money" thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

A jet lands with so much energy (weight) the nose wheel really has no
authority until your almost down to taxi speed. If you didn't have a
rudder, the nose would slip back and forth without really effecting the
direction of the aircraft.

I'd bet that Cessna 172's have more landing gear problems than the
A320. Should we ground them too?

There are 2,500 A320s in operation
(http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/ ) putting more
passengers at risk each day than the 172s carry in a day/week/month.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'd bet that Cessna 172's have more landing gear problems than the
> A320. Should we ground them too?
>

At risk of what? Getting sick on airline food?

This nosegear thing has happened a number of times in the past few years. No
one, as far as I know, has had so much as a minor injury as a result.

"sfb" > wrote in message news:_0Z1f.4045$nz.2795@trnddc03...
> There are 2,500 A320s in operation
> (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/ ) putting more
> passengers at risk each day than the 172s carry in a day/week/month.
>

> passengers at risk each day than the 172s carry in a day/week/month

huh, which pax were at risk? What risk? I"m not following your logic.
Are you speaking of the risk of having to eat dinner in SoCal vs. New
York?
-Robert

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
> Why or how this translates into a more lenient attitude toward airline
> aircraft maintenance is the question. As always, it's probably a
> "follow the money" thing.

There are several routes that a manufacturer can take to correct
difficiencies. To my way of thinking, Lycoming was the impetus behind the
O-540 ADs. They didn't want the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed
against them by week-end single-engine pilots' estates because the engines
failed after the pilots neglected an 'optional' service bulletin. So they
'suggested' that the FAA issue an AD, to my way of thinking.

The FAA isn't afraid to tick off the French. Witness the emergency ADs after
the Roselawn ATR-72 crash. The French DGAC protested loudly that the ADs
weren't neccessary, but every US certificated ATR has the big de-ice boots
now along with a prohibition against using the autopilot in severe icing
conditions.

The A-320 is a good product but not perfect. After 20 years there are still
some bugs to work, as there are in any complex piece of machinery. In my
manual, there are close to 20 operations bulletins. There are service
bulletins issued to flightcrews and to maintenance. The nosewheel problem
and the lack of tail strike protection ($1.5Million or more per strike not
including loss of revenue) perplex me, but then again, the A-320 won't have
exploding gas tanks because the electric pump wiring is outside the tank. A
canted nosewheel is no more dangerous than a gear that fails to extend. The
B-727 has been filmed numerous times landing without one of the gears being
extended. I'm not aware of any ADs for that problem.

Expanding perceptions,
D.