A320 with gear problem over LA

[Skywise]

As I write this at 4:50 pm pacific time, there is a Jet
Blue A320 circling with a nose gear problem. It's rotated
90 degrees.

The news is carrying live video of the plane, but details
aren't fixed. It may be landing at Long Beach or LAX. It
was bound for JFK from Burbank so it has several hours of
fuel on board. There's talk about dumping fuel or burning
it off, but again the reports aren't clear.

Jet Blue flight 292.

Oh, and the talking heads are really a laugh. "So I take it
the nose gear on all big jets can turn?" duh....how do you
think they steer?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jay Beckman]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> As I write this at 4:50 pm pacific time, there is a Jet
> Blue A320 circling with a nose gear problem. It's rotated
> 90 degrees.
>
> The news is carrying live video of the plane, but details
> aren't fixed. It may be landing at Long Beach or LAX. It
> was bound for JFK from Burbank so it has several hours of
> fuel on board. There's talk about dumping fuel or burning
> it off, but again the reports aren't clear.
>
> Jet Blue flight 292.
>
> Oh, and the talking heads are really a laugh. "So I take it
> the nose gear on all big jets can turn?" duh....how do you
> think they steer?
>
> Brian

KABC is streaming it to the web live...

[Ben Hallert]

One of the talking heads just said they will foam the runway. I
thought that introduced more problems then it solved for a situation
like this. My dad said he heard someone on Fox say something about a
"soft tail" landing, I wonder if perhaps they meant 'soft field'
landing where they hold the nose off the ground as long as possible.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Kev]

Skywise wrote:
> As I write this at 4:50 pm pacific time, there is a Jet
> Blue A320 circling with a nose gear problem. It's rotated
> 90 degrees.

The news says that A320s are designed so that they cannot dump fuel,
thus this loaded plane must fly around for a while to burn off some.

Anyone know why the A320 is designed that way?

Good luck to the crew, btw. Watching it on TV, watching arrivals on
Airport Monitor, and listening via Live ATC. What a world!

Kev

[Bob Moore]

"Kev" > wrote

> The news says that A320s are designed so that they cannot dump fuel,
> thus this loaded plane must fly around for a while to burn off some.
> Anyone know why the A320 is designed that way?

(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it
is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of §§25.119 and
25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of
fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around,
and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration,
speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable
takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.

[Bucky]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> KABC is streaming it to the web live...

Thanks for the heads up, this was a great resource at work.

[Kev]

Bob Moore wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote
>
> > The news says that A320s are designed so that they cannot dump fuel,
> > thus this loaded plane must fly around for a while to burn off some.
> > Anyone know why the A320 is designed that way?
>
> (a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it
> is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of =A7=A725.119 a=
nd
> 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of
> fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around,
> and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration,
> speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable
> takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this par=
t=2E

Aha. Thanks so much! It never hit me that dumping fuel would be
related to a climb requirement. I was thinking of max landing weight,
or dumping fuel if you need to make an emergency landing (as in this
case).

Kev

[Skywise]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in news:1127347757.850538.311870
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> One of the talking heads just said they will foam the runway. I
> thought that introduced more problems then it solved for a situation
> like this. My dad said he heard someone on Fox say something about a
> "soft tail" landing, I wonder if perhaps they meant 'soft field'
> landing where they hold the nose off the ground as long as possible.
>
> Ben Hallert
> PP-ASEL

I'm watching ch 7 (KABC) and they're saying 'soft field'.

BTW, it appears that they are circling to burn off fuel as the
A320 cannot dump fuel. But the setting sun will be becoming a
problem as time goes on as the current plan is to land at 25L
at LAX, into the setting sun.

Oh, and the LAPD has just gone to city wide tactical alert. A
bit overkill, I think. It's not a terrorist attack. It's just
a plane making a rougher landing than usual. Unless something
goes drastically wrong, I think they'll pull through just fine.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Kev" > wrote in news:1127348824.014065.179670
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> Good luck to the crew, btw. Watching it on TV, watching arrivals on
> Airport Monitor, and listening via Live ATC. What a world!
>
> Kev

Anything of interest heard on Live ATC? I can't connect. Too busy.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Bucky]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> One of the talking heads just said they will foam the runway. I
> thought that introduced more problems then it solved for a situation
> like this.

I just heard on KABC an interview with an official from the LA fire
department, Jim Wells, who confirmed that they are not foaming the
runways. The radio host must have asked him at least a dozen times, "So
you're not going to foam the runway?" Wells started running low on
patience, "No, we are NOT foaming the runway."

Wells said that they are currently anticipating a landing around
6:05-6:10pm PT. They said they will run firetrucks along with the plane
as it lands and foam the plane if necessary.

[Zulu]

> Anything of interest heard on Live ATC? I can't connect. Too busy.
>

Mostly routine, along with a few questions to ATC about how much longer
until 292 tries to land and everybody can get back to their regularly
scheduled lives. Sounds like airport ops are continuing normally until
they're ready to land.

[Bucky]

Another bit of info is that there are about 140 passengers aboard. Poor
passengers, had to ride for about 3 hrs, must be so stressful.

[Bucky]

Kev wrote:
> Aha. Thanks so much! It never hit me that dumping fuel would be
> related to a climb requirement.

Can you explain to a layperson how the climb requirement factors into
whether it is necessary to have a fuel dump function? Couldn't quite
understand the rule.

[Skywise]

"Zulu" > wrote in news:IknYe.21672$h02.17700
@tornado.texas.rr.com:

>> Anything of interest heard on Live ATC? I can't connect. Too busy.
>>
>
> Mostly routine, along with a few questions to ATC about how much longer
> until 292 tries to land and everybody can get back to their regularly
> scheduled lives. Sounds like airport ops are continuing normally until
> they're ready to land.

Thank you. I might try to grab the archives later on.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:50:48 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>
>Anything of interest heard on Live ATC? I can't connect.

I'll bet the Aircraft Communication Addressing & Reporting System
(ACARS) traffic is more interesting.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bucky" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Kev wrote:
>> Aha. Thanks so much! It never hit me that dumping fuel would be
>> related to a climb requirement.
>
> Can you explain to a layperson how the climb requirement factors into
> whether it is necessary to have a fuel dump function? Couldn't quite
> understand the rule.
>

Sure. If the aircraft loses an engine immediately following takeoff, it
still needs to meet minimum climb performance standards so it can clear
whatever obstacles it may encounter near the the airport. It is conceivable
that if an airplane (particularly a twin engine aircraft) loses an engine,
it may need to reduce weight to meet climb standards. Dumping fuel is the
easiest way to quickly reduce weight...

[Kev]

Yay!

Beautiful job of holding off the gear as long as possible.

The fire was a surprise, although it shouldn't have been. MSNBC had a
pilot on, who'd had the same problem on a different airplane, and his
also skidded down the runway, but he didn't mention flames.

Some mention of the fact that the pilot pretty much kept the airliner
on the centerline... which of course probably doesn't please LAX's
runway maintenance guy <grin>, who might have to repaint it.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/21/05 9:29 PM, in article
. com, "Kev"
> wrote:

> Yay!
>
> Beautiful job of holding off the gear as long as possible.
>
> The fire was a surprise, although it shouldn't have been. MSNBC had a
> pilot on, who'd had the same problem on a different airplane, and his
> also skidded down the runway, but he didn't mention flames.
>
> Some mention of the fact that the pilot pretty much kept the airliner
> on the centerline... which of course probably doesn't please LAX's
> runway maintenance guy <grin>, who might have to repaint it.
>
Awesome job. A soft and smooth as you could hope for. JetBlue has to be more
than pleased with the outcome of this.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[[email protected]]

"I just want to let you know.....We're all counting on you."

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> "I just want to let you know.....We're all counting on you."

"Surely you must be joking..."

[RST Engineering]

Jetblue corporate and flight departments are more than pleased. Jetblue
maintenance and Airbus engineering are going to have a Real Bad Day(tm)
tomorrow.

Jim

>>
> Awesome job. A soft and smooth as you could hope for. JetBlue has to be
> more
> than pleased with the outcome of this.
> --

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/21/05 10:01 PM, in article , "RST
Engineering" > wrote:

> Jetblue corporate and flight departments are more than pleased. Jetblue
> maintenance and Airbus engineering are going to have a Real Bad Day(tm)
> tomorrow.
>
> Jim
>
>>>
>> Awesome job. A soft and smooth as you could hope for. JetBlue has to be
>> more
>> than pleased with the outcome of this.
>> --
>
>

I hope they keep in mind that it could have been much worse.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:CcoYe.261456$E95.207187@fed1read01...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> "I just want to let you know.....We're all counting on you."
>
> "Surely you must be joking..."
>

"It's no joke, and don't call me Shirley..."

[Bob]

I don't understand why they couldn't have sent two guys with sticks out
on the runway in their Jeep. It worked earlier in the week.

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Dumping fuel is the easiest way to quickly reduce weight...

And a heck of a lot less politically problematic than dumping passengers...

[Sylvain]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>>[...] Dumping fuel is the easiest way to quickly reduce weight...
> And a heck of a lot less politically problematic than dumping passengers...

yet, may be not as environmentally friendly...

--Sylvain

[Insert Your Name Here]

"RST Engineering" > wrote:

>Jetblue corporate and flight departments are more than pleased. Jetblue
>maintenance and Airbus engineering are going to have a Real Bad Day(tm)
>tomorrow.


Yes, especially as this is the fifth time (at least) that an A320 has
landed with the nose gear aligned approximately 90 degrees to the
aircraft's longitudinal axis. The fourth such incident occurred in
Columbus, OH on February 16, 1999. Four months prior to that
incident, Airbus Industrie issued a service bulletin that recommended
replacement of the external seals on the steering control module's
selector valve on A320 and A321 airplanes. The SB compliance window
was 18 months. The aircraft in the Columbus, OH incident had not yet
had the SB performed and, yes, it was the SB targeted seals that
failed.

On March 24, 1999, about one month after the Columbus, OH incident,
the DGAC (the French "FAA") issued an Airworthiness Directive to
require compliance with the Airbus Industrie SB. On December 17,
1999, the FAA issued AD 99-23-09 which was based upon the French AD,
with a 12 month time of compliance for modification of the nose wheel
steering control valve.

Read all about it in this 1999 NTSB accident report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00227&key=1

Full Narrative PDF file here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC99IA062&rpt=fa


- -- IYNH -- -

[Montblack]

("Kev" wrote)
[snip]
> Some mention of the fact that the pilot pretty much kept the airliner
> on the centerline... which of course probably doesn't please LAX's
> runway maintenance guy <grin>, who might have to repaint it.


Speaking of maintenance guys ..we came in late to the footage, but saw
people deplaning - LIVE. Did anyone put a jack under the nose of that jet?
All I saw was the truck with the steps.

I was pointing at the TV saying. "Don't walk under the plane people."

They weren't listening to me. At one point I counted 10 people under the
plane's nose, milling about.

By now I'm getting agitated, "Levees break people!!" I couldn't watch
anymore. Please tell me they put a jack under the front of that plane, and I
missed that part of the coverage.

Hey, while I'm at it ...it's LAX people AND you've had hours to plan. One
truck with stairs? It's LAX - all exits open, get those people off the plane
and get that plane off the runway ...NOW!!

You'll probably hear the excuse that they were waiting for the feds, which
"technically" they are. <g>


Montblack

[Stefan]

Kev wrote:

> Anyone know why the A320 is designed that way?

Most airplanes cannot dump fuel. Only very few, mostly long range types,
can. The point is, there is no need for that feature if they can land at
MTOW.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Sure. If the aircraft loses an engine immediately following takeoff, it
> still needs to meet minimum climb performance standards

Which is the reason why usually two engine planes have much better climb
performance than four engine ones.

Stefan

[Dave]

Heh...

I cruised some channels...

Some of the "Talking Heads" were having a great time with
this one!

Got so bad on one channel I turned the sound off for a
while....

Dave


On 21 Sep 2005 17:56:02 -0700, "Bucky" > wrote:

>Ben Hallert wrote:
>> One of the talking heads just said they will foam the runway. I
>> thought that introduced more problems then it solved for a situation
>> like this.
>
>I just heard on KABC an interview with an official from the LA fire
>department, Jim Wells, who confirmed that they are not foaming the
>runways. The radio host must have asked him at least a dozen times, "So
>you're not going to foam the runway?" Wells started running low on
>patience, "No, we are NOT foaming the runway."
>
>Wells said that they are currently anticipating a landing around
>6:05-6:10pm PT. They said they will run firetrucks along with the plane
>as it lands and foam the plane if necessary.

[Bob Moore]

Stefan > wrote in news:

> Most airplanes cannot dump fuel. Only very few, mostly long range types,
> can. The point is, there is no need for that feature if they can land at
> MTOW.

And FAR Part 25 requires that all aircraft be able to land at MTOW with
a sink rate of 6 fps. At MLW, the required sink rate goes up to 10 fps.
It's just that anything over MLW requires an overweight landing inspection.
Up through the 1980s, the fuel jettison requirement WAS based on the
percentage difference between MTOW and MLW, now , the climb requirement
sets the need for a fuel jettison system.

Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

You know, considering how the Colorado congressional delegation attacked the
MU-2 it surprises me we haven't heard talk of safety hearings on Airbus
products out of the Washington State delegation.

[Jay Honeck]

> Speaking of maintenance guys ..we came in late to the footage, but saw
> people deplaning - LIVE. Did anyone put a jack under the nose of that jet?
> All I saw was the truck with the steps.

Yeah, we were all talking the same thing. I sure as heck wouldn't have
walked under the nose of that plane -- and I didn't see any jack.

And what was up with deplaning? This thing comes sliding to a halt with its
nose gear smoking, and NO ONE gets off the plane for, what 10 minutes? I
understand that there was no reason to "blow the slides" but they sure
didn't seem to have anyone waiting in the wings with the air-stairs for
those poor folks.

Can you imagine being on that plane? I'll bet everyone was standing up
immediately after stopping, clamoring to get off, pronto!

Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
screen after the plane slid to a stop? It seemed close to a full minute,
although my memory could be faulty -- maybe it was 30 seconds. Either way,
what happened to the "trucks chasing the plane down the runway?" Shoot, it
looked like they had enough equipment there to place a fire truck every 200
feet on that 12,000 foot runway.

From my oh-so-comfy FoxNews vantage point, it seemed like a less than
stellar performance by LAX -- but, of course, all is well that ends well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

I saw it live and thought the same thing. I'd have figured once the
plane stopped w/engines shut down all the exits would have opened and
slides deployed, but maybe their checklist is different? The strobes
seemed to stay on forever.

I was amused by a reported repeatedly asking (I think an NTSB or FAA
guy) "They're NOT going to foam the runway??" I was a trained ARFF
responder at a regional airport and we'd never foam a runway (not that
we were never asked - it's just Hollywood BS) because there's no
guarantee the pilot wouldn't overshoot the part you foamed. In a
gear-up landing we'd just wait till he stopped sliding and pull up with
the turret deployed looking for any sign of fire. Maybe deploy a foam
handline if it was a small plane but that's about it. A gear collapse
was pretty much a non-event to us.

The airport fire dept. has 3 minutes (FAA mandated) to get to the
scene of the accident (on-airport) so I'd say 30 seconds for the first
LAX fire rigs to show up is acceptable.

[Eduardo K.]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>I saw it live and thought the same thing. I'd have figured once the
>plane stopped w/engines shut down all the exits would have opened and
>slides deployed, but maybe their checklist is different? The strobes
>seemed to stay on forever.
>

There was no fire, the nose strut held ok... no need to deply the chutes.


--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

[RST Engineering]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:gDzYe.396264$xm3.210571@attbi_s21...

>
> And what was up with deplaning? This thing comes sliding to a halt with
> its nose gear smoking, and NO ONE gets off the plane for, what 10 minutes?
> I understand that there was no reason to "blow the slides" but they sure
> didn't seem to have anyone waiting in the wings with the air-stairs for
> those poor folks.

See comment below.

> Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
> screen after the plane slid to a stop? It seemed close to a full minute,
> although my memory could be faulty -- maybe it was 30 seconds. Either
> way, what happened to the "trucks chasing the plane down the runway?"
> Shoot, it looked like they had enough equipment there to place a fire
> truck every 200 feet on that 12,000 foot runway.

The fire trucks stay behind the expected touchdown point (as do the stair
truck(s)) and don't stage every 200 feet down the runway for a very good
reason. The nose gear collapses, the pilot becomes a passenger, and the
airplane goes where it will. The passengers on board all survive, but
you've taken out four fire trucks and god knows how many firefighters when
the airplane swerves off the runway and nails them.


Jim

[Montblack]

("Dave" wrote)
> I cruised some channels...
>
> Some of the "Talking Heads" were having a great time with
> this one!
>
> Got so bad on one channel I turned the sound off for a
> while....


Dave's posts are all over the place on my screen (OE 6.0). His are the only
ones that display this way, yet when I "Reply Group" they seem to clean
themselves up into a [more readable] fashion (above).

His posts look almost like they're 'Aligned Center.'

Any thoughts? His end? My end?

I'm not getting the sense it's an HTML send problem - it's maybe formatting,
or something else instead. Maybe it's a special thing he has for the Tab
key?

Dave? On one hand you're unique. On the other, I pull my hair out when your
posts show up - and I don't have much hair left. :-)


Montblack

[George Patterson]

RST Engineering wrote:

> The nose gear collapses, the pilot becomes a passenger, and the
> airplane goes where it will.

Not completely. He still has some control via differential braking on the mains.
Not enough, of course, to justify putting the fire equipment beside the runway.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Bucky]

Montblack wrote:
> Dave's posts are all over the place on my screen (OE 6.0). His are the only
> ones that display this way, yet when I "Reply Group" they seem to clean
> themselves up into a [more readable] fashion (above).

It's because he's using a tab at the beginning of each paragraph, like
he's writing a paper or something. =) Your reader is smart enough to
remove the whitespace when quoting it.

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:

> Any thoughts? His end? My end?

His end somehow. I get the same thing using Mozilla Thunderbird as a reader.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:

> Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
> screen after the plane slid to a stop? It seemed close to a full minute,
> although my memory could be faulty -- maybe it was 30 seconds. Either
> way, what happened to the "trucks chasing the plane down the runway?"
> Shoot, it looked like they had enough equipment there to place a fire
> truck every 200 feet on that 12,000 foot runway.

Yeah. That was odd. Maybe there's a spped limit for ground vehicles. :-)
As well, has anyone yet explained here why they used so much runway on the
roll out? The news feed I saw had a comment that they stopped with under
1000' to go. Were they just using thrust reversers for most of the rollout
for some reason?

moo

[Montblack]

("Bucky" wrote)
> It's because he's using a tab at the beginning of each paragraph, like
> he's writing a paper or something. =) Your reader is smart enough to
> remove the whitespace when quoting it.


In the mid 90's, I used to put two spaces at the end of each sentence - like
I was taught in my 1976 typing class (Using our new IBM Selectrics).
However, that practice was goofing up some Word/Word Perfect-type program -
maybe it was the old Outlook Express that couldn't handle it. Whatever it
was, it would display a new line where that second 'space' had been
'tapped.'

I liked two spaces at the end of each sentence - there was a certain rhythm
to it when typing. Oh well, time marches on.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

>>>has anyone yet explained here why they used so much runway on the
roll out? The news feed I saw had a comment that they stopped with
under
1000' to go. Were they just using thrust reversers for most of the
rollout
for some reason? <<<

The pilot used up more runway because he wanted to hold the nosewheel
off as long as possible. I doubt the reversers were used at all, as
that would transfer weight forward and bring the nose down faster.

[Peter Duniho]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> I liked two spaces at the end of each sentence - there was a certain
> rhythm
> to it when typing. Oh well, time marches on.

IMHO, it's a font thing.

I use two spaces when typing a plain text or fixed-width font document. I
use one space for text that's formatted with a proportional-width font. (If
someone winds up displaying my two-space, plain text typing in a
proportional-width font, that's their problem :) ).

Of course, like you I do sometimes accidently hit two spaces when I meant to
hit one. There is, as you say, a rhythm your fingers seem to remember. On
the bright side, I never have run into any program misinterpreting two
spaces as a line break. :)

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The pilot used up more runway because he wanted to hold the nosewheel
> off as long as possible. I doubt the reversers were used at all, as
> that would transfer weight forward and bring the nose down faster.

That makes very little sense. That is, it's true that reverse thrust below
the CG would make it harder to keep the nosewheel off the pavement. But as
is easily seen in the video coverage, the nose was already on the pavement
for a great portion of the landing "slide".

So it seems to me that shortening the slide would have been at least as
important a priority. That way, you're less likely to run off the end of
the runway (and with only 1000', that was apparently a real possibility),
and you chew up less of the runway.

Was the pilot actually quoted as saying that the reason he used so much
runway was "because he wanted to hold the nosewheel off as long as
possible"? Or is that just your assumption?

Pete

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Yeah, we were all talking the same thing. I sure as heck wouldn't have
> walked under the nose of that plane -- and I didn't see any jack.

The nose gear didn't collapse. If anything of this non-event is
surprizing, then it's the fact that the nose gear didn't collapse.

> Can you imagine being on that plane? I'll bet everyone was standing up
> immediately after stopping, clamoring to get off, pronto!

I'm sure you would have done so. However I guess the dumb passengers,
not being spam can rated, thought the captain knew what he was doing and
that it was best to follow his instructions.

> Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
> screen after the plane slid to a stop?

Yeah, I'm sure all those professional fire fighters had no clue. Maybe
Ed Fagan will find a passenger who will agree to sue them. I have no
idea for what, but you could help them to find a reason.

Stefan

[jbaloun]

Let the nose down too soon and skid the nose gear farther and faster.
Hold it up too long, stall the elevator and drop the nose slower but
harder.
Use thrust reversers or not? Keep hands on the stick and feet on the
brakes?
How does all of this happen in the highly automated Airbus cockpit?

It seems that the pilot would want to treat the nose gear like he was
walking on eggs. Take it as easy as possible. Adding operations like
cycling the thrust reversers may add too many unknowns to the situation
and may add load to the nose gear. Maybe they keep it as simple as
possible, even if that means running over. He had to be ready to react
as quickly as possible using any means available if halfway down the
runway the nose gear might dig in and jerk the nose to the side. He
would fight what ever happened until as metioned above, the pilot
finally became a passsenger...

It was amazing to watch as the tires ground away, burned, burst open,
peeled off, and then the lower half of the wheel and part of the axle
were ground down.

James

[[email protected]]

>>>That makes very little sense<<<

It made perfect sense to me - In that situation, not knowing how the
nosegear would react upon contact with the runway, I assume the pilot
wanted to delay nosewheel touchdown to the lowest airspeed possible,
hence "holding it off". IIRC the landing runway was 25R which is
12,091ft. long. The fact that they stopped with 1000ft. remaining
suggests to me that no reversers or wheel brakes were used. Then again,
the rolling resistance from the nosewheels being ground down was
probably pretty high : )

>>>Or is that just your assumption?<<<

Roger that

[sfb]

This isn't the first time the A320 had this problem so the simulators
might have flown this configuration about a gazillion times so procedure
should be well understood.

"jbaloun" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Let the nose down too soon and skid the nose gear farther and faster.
> Hold it up too long, stall the elevator and drop the nose slower but
> harder.
> Use thrust reversers or not? Keep hands on the stick and feet on the
> brakes?
> How does all of this happen in the highly automated Airbus cockpit?
>
> It seems that the pilot would want to treat the nose gear like he was
> walking on eggs. Take it as easy as possible. Adding operations like
> cycling the thrust reversers may add too many unknowns to the
> situation
> and may add load to the nose gear. Maybe they keep it as simple as
> possible, even if that means running over. He had to be ready to react
> as quickly as possible using any means available if halfway down the
> runway the nose gear might dig in and jerk the nose to the side. He
> would fight what ever happened until as metioned above, the pilot
> finally became a passsenger...
>
> It was amazing to watch as the tires ground away, burned, burst open,
> peeled off, and then the lower half of the wheel and part of the axle
> were ground down.
>
> James
>

[John Huthmaker]

I have this same problem too. I took typing my freshman year in high school
which was 1992. They still taught this practice. Trust me, it is a very
difficult habit to break. I still type all of my sentences this way, and I
have been scolded by college professors for it.

--
John Huthmaker

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Bucky" wrote)
>> It's because he's using a tab at the beginning of each paragraph, like
>> he's writing a paper or something. =) Your reader is smart enough to
>> remove the whitespace when quoting it.
>
>
> In the mid 90's, I used to put two spaces at the end of each sentence -
> like
> I was taught in my 1976 typing class (Using our new IBM Selectrics).
> However, that practice was goofing up some Word/Word Perfect-type
> program -
> maybe it was the old Outlook Express that couldn't handle it. Whatever it
> was, it would display a new line where that second 'space' had been
> 'tapped.'
>
> I liked two spaces at the end of each sentence - there was a certain
> rhythm
> to it when typing. Oh well, time marches on.
>
>
> Montblack

[Casey Wilson]

....about those pesky thrust reversers....

From an NTSB incident report dated 02/16/1999 concerning a similar A320
[America West, N628AW] event at KCMH:

"...the control tower performed a visual check of the landing gear, which
revealed that the nosewheels were rotated about 90 degrees."

"...the flight crew received indications of dual landing gear control and
interface unit (LCGIU) faults."

"The flight crew then prepared for a landing at CMH, with nosewheel steering
and thrust reversers inoperative due to the faults."

So it would appear the pilot had no thrust reversers to use. This airplane
came to a stop 2,500 feet from the end of KCMH's 10,250 runway. On a final
note, the incident on 9/21/05 was the fifth of its kind.

[Bucky]

wrote:
> I doubt the reversers were used at all

I couldn't tell that the thrust reversers were being used in the video.
But then again, I don't know what kind of thrust reversers are on the
A320 and exactly what they look like.

[Dave]

Ruh Roh!

You have made my day! (always wondered if anyone read my
posts! )

It doesn't show that way on my screen...

But it is probably my doing...I have a half centuary old
habit of "indenting " each paragraph with the "tab " key.. and, a
tendency to white in short (one line) paragraphs.

I have NOT tab/indented this paragraph, did this fix it?

Let me know. I feel really bad about this, as I am "thinning" as
well....

:)

Dave



On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:14:06 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Dave" wrote)
>> I cruised some channels...
>>
>> Some of the "Talking Heads" were having a great time with
>> this one!
>>
>> Got so bad on one channel I turned the sound off for a
>> while....
>
>
>Dave's posts are all over the place on my screen (OE 6.0). His are the only
>ones that display this way, yet when I "Reply Group" they seem to clean
>themselves up into a [more readable] fashion (above).
>
>His posts look almost like they're 'Aligned Center.'
>
>Any thoughts? His end? My end?
>
>I'm not getting the sense it's an HTML send problem - it's maybe formatting,
>or something else instead. Maybe it's a special thing he has for the Tab
>key?
>
>Dave? On one hand you're unique. On the other, I pull my hair out when your
>posts show up - and I don't have much hair left. :-)
>
>
>Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

>I have this same problem too. I took typing my freshman year in high
>school which was 1992. They still taught this practice. Trust me, it is a
>very difficult habit to break. I still type all of my sentences this way,
>and I have been scolded by college professors for it.

Why? I always type two spaces at the end of each sentence. It makes
everything more readable.

In fact, if I didn't do that in college (my degree was in English), my
professors would have had a bird. It was considered de rigueur for all
papers.

Of course, that was typing on an old portable electric typewriter. Man, I
can't imagine how wonderful it must be to type all those damned term papers
on a PC!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> Can you imagine being on that plane? I'll bet everyone was standing up
>> immediately after stopping, clamoring to get off, pronto!
>
> I'm sure you would have done so. However I guess the dumb passengers, not
> being spam can rated, thought the captain knew what he was doing and that
> it was best to follow his instructions.

Have you flown commercially, of late? Passengers do that (for no apparent
reason) on *every* flight -- let alone one in which they've been required to
circle for 3 hours, whilst burning fuel and contemplating their ultimate
demise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <JpIYe.396861$xm3.349765@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Why? I always type two spaces at the end of each sentence. It makes
> everything more readable.

Bingo - the two spaces, even with proportional font, definitely makes
the sentence structure more readable.

Maybe I'm just old. (>-(

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:05:41 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article <JpIYe.396861$xm3.349765@attbi_s21>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Why? I always type two spaces at the end of each sentence. It makes
>> everything more readable.
>
>Bingo - the two spaces, even with proportional font, definitely makes
>the sentence structure more readable.
>
>Maybe I'm just old. (>-(

Here's a link from the University of Chicago manual of style, which
favors one space:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.OneSpaceorTwo.html

AP style is one space. Elsewhere, I read that the Modern Language
Association is agnostic on the issue. IEEE recommends two spaces in
technical papers.

I used two spaces since I learned to type in '57, but I've trained
myself not to (or to try not to) since I've been writing for the
magazine, which has us submit everything in Quark templates. I have
one colleague who's been on the magazine for 32 years. I'll ask him
when, if ever, a formal move from two to one spaces came about.

Don

[Montblack]

("Dave" wrote)
[snip]
> I have NOT tab/indented this paragraph, did this fix it?


Perfect. Thanks.

BTW, you'll find that many, many, many people lurk - they do read your
posts.


Montblack
I know, I know. How do I know there are "lurkers" out there? <g>

[Garner Miller]

In article om>,
Bucky > wrote:

> I couldn't tell that the thrust reversers were being used in the video.
> But then again, I don't know what kind of thrust reversers are on the
> A320 and exactly what they look like.

Here you go:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/909520/M/

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in message
>>>>has anyone yet explained here why they used so much runway on the
> roll out? The news feed I saw had a comment that they stopped with
> under
> 1000' to go. Were they just using thrust reversers for most of the
> rollout
> for some reason? <<<
>
> The pilot used up more runway because he wanted to hold the nosewheel
> off as long as possible.

Then why not add some power? Just kidding. Brakes are used during a soft
field landing where the point is to put as little weight as possible on the
nose gear. Try again.

> I doubt the reversers were used at all, as
> that would transfer weight forward and bring the nose down faster.

How so?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"jbaloun" > wrote in message
> Let the nose down too soon and skid the nose gear farther and faster.
> Hold it up too long, stall the elevator and drop the nose slower but
> harder.
> Use thrust reversers or not? Keep hands on the stick and feet on the
> brakes?
> How does all of this happen in the highly automated Airbus cockpit?
>
> It seems that the pilot would want to treat the nose gear like he was
> walking on eggs. Take it as easy as possible. Adding operations like
> cycling the thrust reversers may add too many unknowns to the situation
> and may add load to the nose gear. Maybe they keep it as simple as
> possible, even if that means running over.

Hadn't thought of that. With the exception of going off the end. What's at
the end of that runway? Is there a soft field landing technique for
airliners?

moo

[Capt.Doug]

>"sfb" wrote in message
> This isn't the first time the A320 had this problem so the simulators
> might have flown this configuration about a gazillion times so procedure
> should be well understood.

Airbus' simulators don't have this malfunction programmed.

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"George Patterson" wrote in message
> Not completely. He still has some control via differential braking on the
mains.
> Not enough, of course, to justify putting the fire equipment beside the
runway.

My experience has been that CFR parks on the side of the runway for the
first half and follows me down to the other end. Even with a collapsed
nosegear, rudder effectiveness along with differential braking should keep
it on the runway for the first half if not for the entire runway length.

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
> And what was up with deplaning? This thing comes sliding to a halt with
its
> nose gear smoking, and NO ONE gets off the plane for, what 10 minutes? I
> understand that there was no reason to "blow the slides" but they sure
> didn't seem to have anyone waiting in the wings with the air-stairs for
> those poor folks.

The stairs staged at the arrival end of the runway. The runway is 2 miles
long. Those trucks are huffing to reach 50 mph. The emergency was over by
that time, so there was no hurry anyway.

D.

[Bucky]

Garner Miller wrote:
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/909520/M/

Thanks! Usenet is awesome. Yeah, after watching the videos again, I
can't see any indication of thrust reversers being deployed. I'm 90%
sure that they weren't used.

[Matt Barrow]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Even with a collapsed
> nosegear, rudder effectiveness along with differential braking should keep
> it on the runway for the first half if not for the entire runway length.
>
Is the rudder strong enough to overcome the friction from the nosegear? That
seems improbable to me (just a guess).


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[zoltan]

It is a good thing that the vertical or horizontal tail did not
separate. Holding the nosegear high during the rollout probably
overstressed the tailfin and it will come off during the next flight. I
think the slides were not used because they would not have worked
anyway.

[Happy Dog]

"zoltan" > wrote in message

> It is a good thing that the vertical or horizontal tail did not
> separate. Holding the nosegear high during the rollout probably
> overstressed the tailfin and it will come off during the next flight.

And you're designing a flying car? How's that coming?

> I
> think the slides were not used because they would not have worked
> anyway.

You might have something there.

m

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I have this same problem too. I took typing my freshman year in high
>>school which was 1992. They still taught this practice. Trust me, it is a
>>very difficult habit to break. I still type all of my sentences this way,
>>and I have been scolded by college professors for it.
>
>
> Why? I always type two spaces at the end of each sentence. It makes
> everything more readable.
>
> In fact, if I didn't do that in college (my degree was in English), my
> professors would have had a bird. It was considered de rigueur for all
> papers.
>
> Of course, that was typing on an old portable electric typewriter. Man, I
> can't imagine how wonderful it must be to type all those damned term papers
> on a PC!

Likewise for me, but the two spaces between sentences convention seems
to be disappearing. Almost all of the engineers and scientists that
I've hired during the last 10 years use just one space between
sentences. Drives me nuts.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Don Tuite wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:05:41 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In article <JpIYe.396861$xm3.349765@attbi_s21>,
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why? I always type two spaces at the end of each sentence. It makes
>>>everything more readable.
>>
>>Bingo - the two spaces, even with proportional font, definitely makes
>>the sentence structure more readable.
>>
>>Maybe I'm just old. (>-(
>
>
> Here's a link from the University of Chicago manual of style, which
> favors one space:
>
> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.OneSpaceorTwo.html

Not surprising. There are a lot of things about Chicago that just
aren't right. They also tear up great airports in the middle of the
night like the true cowards they are.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Even with a collapsed
>>nosegear, rudder effectiveness along with differential braking should keep
>>it on the runway for the first half if not for the entire runway length.
>>
>
> Is the rudder strong enough to overcome the friction from the nosegear? That
> seems improbable to me (just a guess).

Probably at high speed such as at initial touchdown. As the plane
slowed, probably not, but differential braking probably could.


Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Almost all of the engineers and scientists that
> I've hired during the last 10 years use just one space between
> sentences.

That's probably because the whole world (the latin script writing part
of it, anyway) is using only one space ... except exactly one country,
of course.

Stefan

[[email protected]]

"zoltan" said:
>>>Holding the nosegear high during the rollout probably
overstressed the tailfin and it will come off during the next
flight.<<<

What??? How do you figure that? (Can't wait to read THIS explanation)

How would the pilot's pitch input affect the rudder? You're thinking of
the infamous Airbus tail-shedding accident I assume?

[[email protected]]

Happy Dog wrote:
>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<

You have that completely backwards my friend. In a soft field landing
you don't touch the brakes because you risk getting the nosegear stuck
in the "soft field". Weight transfers forward when braking and the last
thing you want is more weight on the nosewheel. No different than
braking in a car - the front end dips.

Same holds true with the reversers. The engines' thrust line is below
the CG. By reversing thrust the nose of the jet is forced down.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:25:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
. . .
>> Here's a link from the University of Chicago manual of style, which
>> favors one space:
>>
>> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.OneSpaceorTwo.html
>
>Not surprising. There are a lot of things about Chicago that just
>aren't right. They also tear up great airports in the middle of the
>night like the true cowards they are.

No football team, either.

Don

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in
> Happy Dog wrote:
>>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as
>>>>little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<
>
> You have that completely backwards my friend. In a soft field landing
> you don't touch the brakes

No brakes, huh? What kind of plane are you talking about? Have you done
any on short fields? (As most turf strips are.) If it's swampy enough to
create enough drag to quickly slow you down well, that's the same as
braking, right? *Think.*

moo

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> I doubt the reversers were used at all, ...

An AP article this morning said the pilots shut down the engines at 60 knots.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:

> Brakes are used during a soft
> field landing where the point is to put as little weight as possible on the
> nose gear.

Not the way I was taught. You stay off the brakes to keep the nose light.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" >
>> Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as
>> little weight as possible on the nose gear.
>
> Not the way I was taught. You stay off the brakes to keep the nose light.

Keeping it light is good. Keeping it in the air (as it will be after TD
with full up elevator) is pointless and increases the landing roll. Use the
brakes after TD until the speed gets to the point where elevator authority
is insufficient to hold the nose up or keep it light enough for the
conditions. How much you use then depends on the length of the strip.

moo

[[email protected]]

>>>No brakes, huh? What kind of plane are you talking about? Have you done
any on short fields? (As most turf strips are.) If it's swampy enough
to
create enough drag to quickly slow you down well, that's the same as
braking, right? *Think.* <<<

First you said "soft field" (go back and reread your own post) **no
brakes** Now you're saying "short field". Of course you'd use brakes
on a short field. I'm a CFI, this is nothing new to me, I've taught
short/soft field techniques till I puked. And spare me your smartass
comments like "try again" and "think" when you're contradicting
yourself *Genius*

[zoltan]

I was simply being sarcastic about the A320 s.
There have been several vertical tail separation incidents.
At the recent runway overrun in Canada only half the slides worked.
There have been over sixty nosewheel incidents.
There was a recent flap incident.

My flying car is coming slower than I would like.

Zoltan

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:

> Keeping it light is good. Keeping it in the air (as it will be after TD
> with full up elevator) is pointless and increases the landing roll. Use the
> brakes after TD until the speed gets to the point where elevator authority
> is insufficient to hold the nose up or keep it light enough for the
> conditions. How much you use then depends on the length of the strip.

Have you ever actually put one down in a plowed or muddy field? You'd better
pray that you actually *can* keep the nose wheel in the air or, at least, keep
it from digging in. Seen the ad in AOPA Pilot for renter's insurance? That's a
guy who didn't do that. NO BRAKES. The ground will do a perfectly good job of that.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Ron Natalie]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I use two spaces when typing a plain text or fixed-width font document. I
> use one space for text that's formatted with a proportional-width font. (If
> someone winds up displaying my two-space, plain text typing in a
> proportional-width font, that's their problem :) ).
>
That's because things that can deal with proportional fonts know how
much whitespace to insert. You don't ever want to add your own
whitespace (either horizontal or vertical).

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in message
>>>>No brakes, huh? What kind of plane are you talking about? Have you
>>>>done
> any on short fields? (As most turf strips are.) If it's swampy enough
> to
> create enough drag to quickly slow you down well, that's the same as
> braking, right? *Think.* <<<
>
> First you said "soft field" (go back and reread your own post) **no
> brakes** Now you're saying "short field". Of course you'd use brakes
> on a short field. I'm a CFI, this is nothing new to me, I've taught
> short/soft field techniques till I puked.

"Have you done any (soft field landings, the topic of conversation, in case
you forgot or are too dense) on short fields? (As most turf strips are.)"
Is that better now? You, of course, know that most soft fields are short.
And, you don't use short field technique because you want to TD as lightly
as possible and that often requires dragging it in with a bit of power. You
really don't touch the brakes doing this on a 1500' grass strip? Sure.

> And spare me your smartass
> comments like "try again" and "think" when you're contradicting
> yourself *Genius*

It's Usenet. And you've misread my post. Try to get over it.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" >

>> Keeping it light is good. Keeping it in the air (as it will be after TD
>> with full up elevator) is pointless and increases the landing roll. Use
>> the brakes after TD until the speed gets to the point where elevator
>> authority is insufficient to hold the nose up or keep it light enough for
>> the conditions. How much you use then depends on the length of the
>> strip.
>
> Have you ever actually put one down in a plowed or muddy field? You'd
> better pray that you actually *can* keep the nose wheel in the air or, at
> least, keep it from digging in. Seen the ad in AOPA Pilot for renter's
> insurance? That's a guy who didn't do that. NO BRAKES. The ground will do
> a perfectly good job of that.

The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes to
stop before the end in most GA planes, right? I say use the brakes until
you have full up elevator and the nose starts to get heavy. There is no
reason to avoid using brakes when doing a soft field landing on firm ground
(as most of them are). And that's what it looks like the A320 pilot was
doing. You will know, within a second of TD, whether the ground is soft
enough to cause braking-like friction on the mains and you will brake
accordingly. 2000' of firm turf says you do.

moo

[[email protected]]

Happy Dog wrote:
>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<

Dude - your original assertion (above) was ridiculous. ANY braking will
put more weight on the nose wheel. That's what I was responding to.
Hell, even George P. is backing me up here : )

>>>you don't use short field technique because you want to TD as lightly as possible <<<

Short field technique doesn't necessarily mean a carrier landing-type
touchdown IMHO

>>>You really don't touch the brakes doing this on a 1500' grass strip?<<<

Now you're being more specific. On a familiar grass field, of course.
(I'd never fly into one that short (personal minimums) I fly a T-tail
Lance, definitely not a short/soft field plane. Maybe in a taildragger,
but then I'd never use the brakes (or even need them for that matter)

>>>in case you forgot or are too dense<<<

Are you this obnoxious in person?

[[email protected]]

>>>I was simply being sarcastic about the A320 s.
There have been several vertical tail separation incidents.
At the recent runway overrun in Canada only half the slides worked.
There have been over sixty nosewheel incidents.
There was a recent flap incident. <<<

I see. My sarcasm detector musta been off : )

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> > wrote in
>
>>Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>>>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as
>>>>>little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<
>>
>>You have that completely backwards my friend. In a soft field landing
>>you don't touch the brakes
>
>
> No brakes, huh? What kind of plane are you talking about? Have you done
> any on short fields? (As most turf strips are.) If it's swampy enough to
> create enough drag to quickly slow you down well, that's the same as
> braking, right? *Think.*

Have you had this reading comprehension problem long? He said soft
field, not short field. And he didn't touch the brakes, he didn't say
the plane wouldn't slow down due to drag from the soft field.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put
>> as little weight as possible on the nose gear.
>
>
> Not the way I was taught. You stay off the brakes to keep the nose light.

Yep and I was taught to begin to feed the power in as you slow towards a
fast taxi speed. I've never landed on a really soft field before to try
the technique for real, but it makes sense.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "George Patterson" >
>
>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as
>>>little weight as possible on the nose gear.
>>
>>Not the way I was taught. You stay off the brakes to keep the nose light.
>
>
> Keeping it light is good. Keeping it in the air (as it will be after TD
> with full up elevator) is pointless and increases the landing roll. Use the
> brakes after TD until the speed gets to the point where elevator authority
> is insufficient to hold the nose up or keep it light enough for the
> conditions. How much you use then depends on the length of the strip.

I'm guessing now that you aren't a pilot. You want to keep the nose in
the air as long as possible on a soft field. This may well be
impossible even with full elevator as the drag on the mains can be
substantial depending on how soft the field is. I've landed in fairly
deep snow before and it was hard to keep the nosewheel in the air below
about 40 MPH in my 182.

If the nosewheel touches a soft field at too high a speed, you may well
lose the nosegear and make a much more sudden stop than you desire.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "George Patterson" >
>
>>>Keeping it light is good. Keeping it in the air (as it will be after TD
>>>with full up elevator) is pointless and increases the landing roll. Use
>>>the brakes after TD until the speed gets to the point where elevator
>>>authority is insufficient to hold the nose up or keep it light enough for
>>>the conditions. How much you use then depends on the length of the
>>>strip.
>>
>>Have you ever actually put one down in a plowed or muddy field? You'd
>>better pray that you actually *can* keep the nose wheel in the air or, at
>>least, keep it from digging in. Seen the ad in AOPA Pilot for renter's
>>insurance? That's a guy who didn't do that. NO BRAKES. The ground will do
>>a perfectly good job of that.
>
>
> The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes to
> stop before the end in most GA planes, right? I say use the brakes until
> you have full up elevator and the nose starts to get heavy. There is no
> reason to avoid using brakes when doing a soft field landing on firm ground
> (as most of them are). And that's what it looks like the A320 pilot was
> doing. You will know, within a second of TD, whether the ground is soft
> enough to cause braking-like friction on the mains and you will brake
> accordingly. 2000' of firm turf says you do.

A turf field isn't always a soft field. A soft field is a description
of the condition of the runway at a particular time, not a description
as to whether it is a turf runway or something else. Most turn runways
are only soft fields after a very lengthy rain or during the spring when
the spring thaw is occurring in areas where the frost goes more than a
couple inches deep. You don't use the brakes when landing on a soft
field. You can use them on a turf field, but you may or may not need to.

Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

I've landed in fairly
> deep snow before and it was hard to keep the nosewheel in the air below
> about 40 MPH in my 182.

Having lots of landings in deep snow in a 182, with deep being 3" or
more, there's no keeping the nosewheel in the air once the mains hit.
It's like landing on a carrier.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I've landed in fairly
>
>> deep snow before and it was hard to keep the nosewheel in the air
>> below about 40 MPH in my 182.
>
>
> Having lots of landings in deep snow in a 182, with deep being 3" or
> more, there's no keeping the nosewheel in the air once the mains hit.
> It's like landing on a carrier.

Depends on the snow. Heavy, wet snow, yep. Light, fluffy snow, not too
hard to keep the nosewheel aloft for a while.


Matt

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:

> The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes to
> stop before the end in most GA planes, right?

That doesn't make using the brakes a soft field technique. It is a short field
technique.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in message
>>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as
>>>>little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<
>
> Dude - your original assertion (above) was ridiculous. ANY braking will
> put more weight on the nose wheel. That's what I was responding to.
> Hell, even George P. is backing me up here : )

Both are irrelevant. You use brakes during a soft field landing unless
conditions, rare conditions, prohibit them.
>
>>>>you don't use short field technique because you want to TD as lightly as
>>>>possible <<<
>
> Short field technique doesn't necessarily mean a carrier landing-type
> touchdown IMHO

Huh?
>
>>>>You really don't touch the brakes doing this on a 1500' grass strip?<<<
>
> Now you're being more specific. On a familiar grass field, of course.
> (I'd never fly into one that short (personal minimums) I fly a T-tail
> Lance, definitely not a short/soft field plane. Maybe in a taildragger,
> but then I'd never use the brakes (or even need them for that matter)
>
>>>>in case you forgot or are too dense<<<
>
> Are you this obnoxious in person?

Yes. But you wouldn't see it that way. Welcome to Usenet.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" >
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> > wrote in
>>
>>>Happy Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put
>>>>>>as little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<
>>>
>>>You have that completely backwards my friend. In a soft field landing
>>>you don't touch the brakes
>>
>>
>> No brakes, huh? What kind of plane are you talking about? Have you done
>> any on short fields? (As most turf strips are.) If it's swampy enough
>> to create enough drag to quickly slow you down well, that's the same as
>> braking, right? *Think.*
>
> Have you had this reading comprehension problem long? He said soft field,
> not short field. And he didn't touch the brakes, he didn't say the plane
> wouldn't slow down due to drag from the soft field.

And I didn't say "short field landing". I pointed out that most soft field
landing are made on short fields. (And short field technique isn't
appropriate.) If you interpreted my post some other way, then you have the
comprehension problem.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes
>> to stop before the end in most GA planes, right? I say use the brakes
>> until you have full up elevator and the nose starts to get heavy. There
>> is no reason to avoid using brakes when doing a soft field landing on
>> firm ground (as most of them are). And that's what it looks like the
>> A320 pilot was doing. You will know, within a second of TD, whether the
>> ground is soft enough to cause braking-like friction on the mains and you
>> will brake accordingly. 2000' of firm turf says you do.
>
> A turf field isn't always a soft field. A soft field is a description of
> the condition of the runway at a particular time, not a description as to
> whether it is a turf runway or something else. Most turn runways are only
> soft fields after a very lengthy rain or during the spring when the spring
> thaw is occurring in areas where the frost goes more than a couple inches
> deep. You don't use the brakes when landing on a soft field. You can use
> them on a turf field, but you may or may not need to.

Turf field landings are soft field landings. Don't forget about gopher
holes. You were taught that a turf field landing is not a soft field
landing?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:FJ2Ze.2242$lW3.467@trndny09...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes
>> to stop before the end in most GA planes, right?
>
> That doesn't make using the brakes a soft field technique. It is a short
> field technique.

Oh please. It's part of almost every landing technique.

moo

[Insert Your Name Here]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Can you imagine being on that plane? I'll bet everyone was standing up
>immediately after stopping, clamoring to get off, pronto!

Just because you are an idiot, Honeck, don't assume the passengers on
the plane are.

>Stranger still, how long did it take those fire trucks to appear in the
>screen after the plane slid to a stop? It seemed close to a full minute,
>although my memory could be faulty -- maybe it was 30 seconds. Either way,
>what happened to the "trucks chasing the plane down the runway?" Shoot, it
>looked like they had enough equipment there to place a fire truck every 200
>feet on that 12,000 foot runway.

"Place a fire truck every 200 ft on the runway"??? What an idiotic
notion.

>From my oh-so-comfy FoxNews vantage point, it seemed like a less than
>stellar performance by LAX

And from my vantage point, you are a moron. "Less than stellar
performance by LAX"??? Honeck, you haven't a clue.

- -- IYNH -- -

[Insert Your Name Here]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Have you flown commercially, of late? Passengers do that (for no apparent
>reason) on *every* flight.

Yeah sure, after watching live video for two plus hours of their
airplane's nose wheel cocked 90 degrees, and after landing with said
nose gear cocked, and after being told to "Brace! Brace! Brace!" just
prior to touchdown, and after the incredibly loud noise from said
landing gear grinding away on the runway as the plane slowly rolled to
a stop, the passengers are going to "immediately" stand up, pull their
baggage from the overhead bins, and "clamor" to get off the plane like
it's some routine flight that's just pulled up to the gate. Honeck,
you are clueless moron. Of course, I already knew that from your many
(far too many) prior posts.

- -- IYNH -- -

[Insert Your Name Here]

"Happy Dog" > wrote:

>Then why not add some power? Just kidding. Brakes are used during a soft
>field landing where the point is to put as little weight as possible on the
>nose gear. Try again.

Idiot. The poster doesn't have to "try again" because he was correct.

>> I doubt the reversers were used at all, as
>> that would transfer weight forward and bring the nose down faster.

>How so?

Simple physics, idiot.

You and a few other IDIOTS, such as Honeck, who BS incessantly in this
forum day in and day out, would do well to SHUT THE **** UP for a
while because every time you open your idiot pie holes you come off
even dumber than before.

- -- IYNH -- -

[Jay Honeck]

> Yeah sure, after watching live video for two plus hours of their
> airplane's nose wheel cocked 90 degrees, and after landing with said
> nose gear cocked, and after being told to "Brace! Brace! Brace!" just
> prior to touchdown, and after the incredibly loud noise from said
> landing gear grinding away on the runway as the plane slowly rolled to
> a stop, the passengers are going to "immediately" stand up, pull their
> baggage from the overhead bins, and "clamor" to get off the plane like
> it's some routine flight that's just pulled up to the gate. Honeck,
> you are clueless moron. Of course, I already knew that from your many
> (far too many) prior posts.

If you don't think those poor people were up and demanding to get off that
plane as soon as it came screeching to a stop, you're nuts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> > wrote in message
>
>>>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put as
>>>>>little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<
>>
>>Dude - your original assertion (above) was ridiculous. ANY braking will
>>put more weight on the nose wheel. That's what I was responding to.
>>Hell, even George P. is backing me up here : )
>
>
> Both are irrelevant. You use brakes during a soft field landing unless
> conditions, rare conditions, prohibit them.

Just the opposite. You don't use the brakes during a soft field landing
unless rare conditions require them. You typically will have all of the
deceleration you need from the drag of the wheels in the soft field.
You should do some research before making yourself look so foolish in
public. It is easy to Google "soft field landing" and find lots of
useful information.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>>>The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes
>>>to stop before the end in most GA planes, right? I say use the brakes
>>>until you have full up elevator and the nose starts to get heavy. There
>>>is no reason to avoid using brakes when doing a soft field landing on
>>>firm ground (as most of them are). And that's what it looks like the
>>>A320 pilot was doing. You will know, within a second of TD, whether the
>>>ground is soft enough to cause braking-like friction on the mains and you
>>>will brake accordingly. 2000' of firm turf says you do.
>>
>>A turf field isn't always a soft field. A soft field is a description of
>>the condition of the runway at a particular time, not a description as to
>>whether it is a turf runway or something else. Most turn runways are only
>>soft fields after a very lengthy rain or during the spring when the spring
>>thaw is occurring in areas where the frost goes more than a couple inches
>>deep. You don't use the brakes when landing on a soft field. You can use
>>them on a turf field, but you may or may not need to.
>
>
> Turf field landings are soft field landings. Don't forget about gopher
> holes. You were taught that a turf field landing is not a soft field
> landing?

Yes, I was taught to make normal full-stall landings on the grass at the
field where I learned to fly. N38 at that time had both asphalt and
grass and we used the grass most of the time as the airport owner,
instructor, A&P and DE didn't want to wear his tires out any faster than
necessary. If the field was dry and the grass properly mowed, there was
absolutely no reason to use soft-field technique on the grass.

Have you ever flown a real airplane? No, computer simulators don't count.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" >
>
>>Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>>>Happy Dog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Brakes are used during a soft field landing where the point is to put
>>>>>>>as little weight as possible on the nose gear. Try again.<<<
>>>>
>>>>You have that completely backwards my friend. In a soft field landing
>>>>you don't touch the brakes
>>>
>>>
>>>No brakes, huh? What kind of plane are you talking about? Have you done
>>>any on short fields? (As most turf strips are.) If it's swampy enough
>>>to create enough drag to quickly slow you down well, that's the same as
>>>braking, right? *Think.*
>>
>>Have you had this reading comprehension problem long? He said soft field,
>>not short field. And he didn't touch the brakes, he didn't say the plane
>>wouldn't slow down due to drag from the soft field.
>
>
> And I didn't say "short field landing". I pointed out that most soft field
> landing are made on short fields. (And short field technique isn't
> appropriate.) If you interpreted my post some other way, then you have the
> comprehension problem.

So rain and snow only fall on short runways? Wow, I never know that before.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:FJ2Ze.2242$lW3.467@trndny09...
>
>>Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The vast majority of soft fields are short turf strips. You need brakes
>>>to stop before the end in most GA planes, right?
>>
>>That doesn't make using the brakes a soft field technique. It is a short
>>field technique.
>
>
> Oh please. It's part of almost every landing technique.

The key word is almost and the exception is soft field landings where
the use of the brakes is almost never necessary and almost always harmful.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Insert Your Name Here wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>Have you flown commercially, of late? Passengers do that (for no apparent
>>reason) on *every* flight.
>
>
> Yeah sure, after watching live video for two plus hours of their
> airplane's nose wheel cocked 90 degrees, and after landing with said
> nose gear cocked, and after being told to "Brace! Brace! Brace!" just
> prior to touchdown, and after the incredibly loud noise from said
> landing gear grinding away on the runway as the plane slowly rolled to
> a stop, the passengers are going to "immediately" stand up, pull their
> baggage from the overhead bins, and "clamor" to get off the plane like
> it's some routine flight that's just pulled up to the gate. Honeck,
> you are clueless moron. Of course, I already knew that from your many
> (far too many) prior posts.
>
> - -- IYNH -- -
>

At least he isn't a coward who is afraid to use his/her real name.

Matt

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:


>
> Turf field landings are soft field landings.

Only if you've never been there before.

Don't forget about gopher
> holes. You were taught that a turf field landing is not a soft field
> landing?

It might be. I know of about 50 grass strips here in my local area.
Landed on all of them. Unless they are wet because of a recent rain
then they aren't soft fields. There's no gopher holes. On landing I
brake as necessary for runway length or other operational concern. On
takeoff I will get the nose light, but not off the ground, so the strut
doesn't hammer up and down on the rough ones

[N93332]

"Insert Your Name Here" <IYNH@whatever> wrote in message
...
> you are clueless moron. Of course, I already knew that from your many
> (far too many) prior posts.
>
> - -- IYNH -- -

If you're only going to post here to berate everyone and do it anonymously,
don't post.

-Greg B.

[Michael]

> Awesome job. A soft and smooth as you could hope for.

No argument - I saw it live, and it was perfect. Touched down short,
kept the nose up as long as possible, lowered it gently, tracked
centerline through the whole rollout. But honestly - would you expect
any less? A control problem on rollout might be a challenge to a low
time pilot, but these guys have thousands of hours. They know exactly
what's coming. I would have been surprised had I seen anything less.

A few months ago, I had a guy flying with me - a friend of a friend -
in my Twin Comanche. I won't say it's a difficult airplane, but
everyone else who has ever tried to fly it in IMC (or even under the
hood) had a difficult time with it the first time around. This
includes CFII/MEI's who were instrument and multiengine current
including one who was a Cessna 310 owner. This guy just took the
controls and within seconds he was doing as well as I could - maybe
better - and I have nearly a thousand hours in that one airplane. His
flying was smooth, controlled, precise - and effortless. Just like
what we saw on TV.

He was a captain for a major airline. They can pretty much ALL fly
that way, excepting the ocasional screwup. They've all had thousands
of hours to practice.

Michael

[Bob Moore]

"Michael" > wrote

> He was a captain for a major airline. They can pretty much ALL fly
> that way, excepting the ocasional screwup. They've all had thousands
> of hours to practice.

Why, thank you Michael!

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

[Jay Honeck]

> > you are clueless moron. Of course, I already knew that from your many
> > (far too many) prior posts.
> >
> > - -- IYNH -- -
>
> If you're only going to post here to berate everyone and do it anonymously,
> don't post.

Ah, don't worry about guys like him, Greg. I always just assume they
were abused as children...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>> Both are irrelevant. You use brakes during a soft field landing unless
>> conditions, rare conditions, prohibit them.
>
> Just the opposite. You don't use the brakes during a soft field landing
> unless rare conditions require them. You typically will have all of the
> deceleration you need from the drag of the wheels in the soft field.

Your practical experience doing this is? What's the length of the field?
Again, *most* of them are short (<2500'). And most turf strips are firm
most of the time.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> Turf field landings are soft field landings. Don't forget about gopher
>> holes. You were taught that a turf field landing is not a soft field
>> landing?
>
> Yes, I was taught to make normal full-stall landings on the grass at the
> field where I learned to fly. N38 at that time had both asphalt and grass
> and we used the grass most of the time as the airport owner, instructor,
> A&P and DE didn't want to wear his tires out any faster than necessary.
> If the field was dry and the grass properly mowed, there was absolutely no
> reason to use soft-field technique on the grass.

Except for the gopher holes. I believe you. But I suspect that the
majority of instructors would classify a turf landing as a soft field
landing. And how would a flight test examiner look at it?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>Have you had this reading comprehension problem long? He said soft
>>>field, not short field. And he didn't touch the brakes, he didn't say
>>>the plane wouldn't slow down due to drag from the soft field.
>>
>>
>> And I didn't say "short field landing". I pointed out that most soft
>> field landing are made on short fields. (And short field technique isn't
>> appropriate.) If you interpreted my post some other way, then you have
>> the comprehension problem.
>
> So rain and snow only fall on short runways? Wow, I never know that
> before.

Most soft field landings are made on short fields. Are you disagreeing with
this assertion or just desperate to find some way to argue about it?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>That doesn't make using the brakes a soft field technique. It is a short
>>>field technique.
>>
>>
>> Oh please. It's part of almost every landing technique.
>
> The key word is almost and the exception is soft field landings where the
> use of the brakes is almost never necessary and almost always harmful.

Except when they're made on the turf strip *you* land on, right? Then
they're short field landings. Do I have this correct? You want to try this
on a flight test?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in
>> Turf field landings are soft field landings.
>
> Only if you've never been there before.
>
> Don't forget about gopher
>> holes. You were taught that a turf field landing is not a soft field
>> landing?
>
> It might be. I know of about 50 grass strips here in my local area.
> Landed on all of them. Unless they are wet because of a recent rain then
> they aren't soft fields. There's no gopher holes. On landing I brake as
> necessary for runway length or other operational concern. On takeoff I
> will get the nose light, but not off the ground, so the strut doesn't
> hammer up and down on the rough ones

So it is a soft field but it isn't. And you lighten the nose on takeoff but
not on landing because something different is happening with the
relationship between the nose wheel and those "rough ones" during the
landing roll. And you are certain that there are no gopher holes because
you've been there before. Do I have this right? You want to use this logic
on a flight test?

moo

[Bob Moore]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in
:

> But I suspect that the majority of instructors would classify
> a turf landing as a soft field landing.

Not I, and I have been CFIing since 1970.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI
PanAm (retired)

[Happy Dog]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in
> :
>
>> But I suspect that the majority of instructors would classify
>> a turf landing as a soft field landing.
>
> Not I, and I have been CFIing since 1970.

Interesting.

moo

[RST Engineering]

Bob and I got our CFIs in the same year, and I agree with him. And, I've
got several thousand landings on grass strips and a handful of them were
soft. That airplane stops NOW in wet grass and mud.

Jim


"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in
> :
>
>> But I suspect that the majority of instructors would classify
>> a turf landing as a soft field landing.
>
> Not I, and I have been CFIing since 1970.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFI
> PanAm (retired)

[RST Engineering]

I was sort of wondering when Bill Mulcahy would show back up and in what
persona.


Jim




"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...

> So it is a soft field but it isn't. And you lighten the nose on takeoff
> but not on landing because something different is happening with the
> relationship between the nose wheel and those "rough ones" during the
> landing roll. And you are certain that there are no gopher holes because
> you've been there before. Do I have this right? You want to use this
> logic on a flight test?
>
> moo
>
>
>

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:

> Turf field landings are soft field landings.

None of the ones I've landed at were soft.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[B. Jensen]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Is the rudder strong enough to overcome the friction from the nosegear? That
> seems improbable to me (just a guess).

No...especially a low speeds.

BJ

[B. Jensen]

Hmmm, the Airbus Simulator that I fly does.

BJ

Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"sfb" wrote in message
>>This isn't the first time the A320 had this problem so the simulators
>>might have flown this configuration about a gazillion times so procedure
>>should be well understood.
>
>
> Airbus' simulators don't have this malfunction programmed.
>
> D.
>
>

[B. Jensen]

More than likely, the reversers weren't used. Here's why:

1. The hydraulics to the nose gear in this situation were turned off.
(green system).

2. With the green system turned off, the #1 thrust reverser's are inop.
Using reverse thrust would have caused asymmetrical reverse thrust.

3. With green system off, normal (ie anti-skid) braking is inop. The
backup system (yellow) in now in affect w/o anti-skid. Besides being
gentle with the brakes in this situation (to avoid blowing tires on the
main gear) the pilot wants to avoid heavy loads on the nose gear until
at a very low speed. BTW, autobrakes are inop in this situation also.

4. Another factor that increased the landing roll was the fact that #1 &
#5 spoilers were inop in this situation at touchdown. This greatly
increases landing roll.

5. When a nosegear problem presents itself, some situations call for
shutting down the engines on VERY short final and deadsticking the
landing. Why, because if the nose gear fails, the first thing to contact
the runway on an A320 is the engines. This can easily cause the N1
compressor blades to shear and be thrown in all directions...including
the cabin section of the aircraft.

These guys did a great job! Why did they use so much runway? Because,
they had it to use and 1-5 above.

BTW, all landing performance on the A320 is based on NO reverse thrust
being used.

BJ
A320 Capt.

Bucky wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>I doubt the reversers were used at all
>
>
> I couldn't tell that the thrust reversers were being used in the video.
> But then again, I don't know what kind of thrust reversers are on the
> A320 and exactly what they look like.
>

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>
>>>Both are irrelevant. You use brakes during a soft field landing unless
>>>conditions, rare conditions, prohibit them.
>>
>>Just the opposite. You don't use the brakes during a soft field landing
>>unless rare conditions require them. You typically will have all of the
>>deceleration you need from the drag of the wheels in the soft field.
>
>
> Your practical experience doing this is? What's the length of the field?
> Again, *most* of them are short (<2500'). And most turf strips are firm
> most of the time.

I learned at N38, which was a fairly short (1899' sticks in my mind)
field prior to an upgrade of the airport in the mid 90's. The airport
had trees at one end and a road across the other. The sole runway was
9/27 (it is now 10/28) and had a grass runway beside the asphalt. I
flew everything from 150s to 182s on both the grass and asphalt. There
was no reason to use the brakes when landing on the grass nor was there
a need to use soft field technique, or even short field technique.
Anyone who can't land even a 182 on 1900' of grass runway without brakes
needs to learn better landing technique.

I learned from an instructor who has about 50 years of instructing
experience and more than 50K flight hours. He was written up in the
back of AOPA Pilot several years ago.

What is your practical experience? Are you even a pilot?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>>>Turf field landings are soft field landings. Don't forget about gopher
>>>holes. You were taught that a turf field landing is not a soft field
>>>landing?
>>
>>Yes, I was taught to make normal full-stall landings on the grass at the
>>field where I learned to fly. N38 at that time had both asphalt and grass
>>and we used the grass most of the time as the airport owner, instructor,
>>A&P and DE didn't want to wear his tires out any faster than necessary.
>>If the field was dry and the grass properly mowed, there was absolutely no
>>reason to use soft-field technique on the grass.
>
>
> Except for the gopher holes. I believe you. But I suspect that the
> majority of instructors would classify a turf landing as a soft field
> landing. And how would a flight test examiner look at it?

My instructor was also the local DE. He looked at it just as I
described above as that is just what he taught. If you couldn't tell
the difference between a grass/turf runway and a soft field, you'd have
never passed your check ride with him. A soft field is a runway
CONDITION, not a type of runway. Is this really so hard for you to
understand?

An asphalt runway can be a soft field (just add 6" of wet snow), and a
grass runway usually isn't. You use the landing technique appropriate
for the runway condition, not for the type of runway.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>>>>Have you had this reading comprehension problem long? He said soft
>>>>field, not short field. And he didn't touch the brakes, he didn't say
>>>>the plane wouldn't slow down due to drag from the soft field.
>>>
>>>
>>>And I didn't say "short field landing". I pointed out that most soft
>>>field landing are made on short fields. (And short field technique isn't
>>>appropriate.) If you interpreted my post some other way, then you have
>>>the comprehension problem.
>>
>>So rain and snow only fall on short runways? Wow, I never know that
>>before.
>
>
> Most soft field landings are made on short fields. Are you disagreeing with
> this assertion or just desperate to find some way to argue about it?

I disagree with it. Most of my soft field landings have been made on
snow covered asphalt runways that were plenty long (>2,000'). I've
never landed on a really soft grass or dirt runway. Most around here
are closed during the spring when they are really soft as landing on
them ruts them up pretty bad.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>>>>That doesn't make using the brakes a soft field technique. It is a short
>>>>field technique.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh please. It's part of almost every landing technique.
>>
>>The key word is almost and the exception is soft field landings where the
>>use of the brakes is almost never necessary and almost always harmful.
>
>
> Except when they're made on the turf strip *you* land on, right? Then
> they're short field landings. Do I have this correct? You want to try this
> on a flight test?

How many flight tests have you passed? It is prettly clear now that you
aren't a pilot so I'm done trying to explain this simple concept to you.
If you'd take the time to do even a cursory Google search, you'd see
that you are wrong.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 121...
>
>>"Happy Dog" > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>But I suspect that the majority of instructors would classify
>>>a turf landing as a soft field landing.
>>
>>Not I, and I have been CFIing since 1970.
>
>
> Interesting.

Not all that interesting really. This is likely true of 99% of the
flight instructors out there, and has been true of 100% of those I've
flown with. I'd say this is simply expected, which doesn't make it all
that interesting. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> I was sort of wondering when Bill Mulcahy would show back up and in what
> persona.

Ha, ha, ha... I'd kind of forgotten about that nut case. I guess with
a name like "moo", you can't expect much.

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>> . 121...
>>
>>>"Happy Dog" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But I suspect that the majority of instructors would classify
>>>>a turf landing as a soft field landing.
>>>
>>>Not I, and I have been CFIing since 1970.
>>
>>
>> Interesting.
>
> Not all that interesting really. This is likely true of 99% of the flight
> instructors out there, and has been true of 100% of those I've flown with.
> I'd say this is simply expected, which doesn't make it all that
> interesting. :-)

Well, it's interesting to me since my training was different. I was taught
to treat turf landings like soft field landings. The reason given was that
it reduces stress on the oleo from bumpy terrain and mostly eliminates the
obvious dangers associated with holes in the ground. I don't recall the
performance landings I had to do on either of my tests (PPL & CPL) but, like
most people, they were done using simulated conditions. (The runway has a
row of trees at the 2000' point. The runway is covered with six inches of
snow. Etc.) It looks like my training differed from yours. I'm going to
ask a couple of respected DFTEs I know what they would like to hear as an
answer. Maybe it's different in Canada.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> I was sort of wondering when Bill Mulcahy would show back up and in what
>> persona.
>
> Ha, ha, ha... I'd kind of forgotten about that nut case. I guess with a
> name like "moo", you can't expect much.

Nor should you. It's Usenet. However, the OP's sock puppet remark suggests
laziness or stupidity WRT sock puppetry.

moo

[Matt Barrow]

>> Except for the gopher holes. I believe you. But I suspect that the
>> majority of instructors would classify a turf landing as a soft field
>> landing. And how would a flight test examiner look at it?

Around here, if it hasn't rained in two or more days, the turf is as hard as
any concrete or asphalt strip you'll ever land on.

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Except for the gopher holes. I believe you. But I suspect that the
>>> majority of instructors would classify a turf landing as a soft field
>>> landing. And how would a flight test examiner look at it?
>
> Around here, if it hasn't rained in two or more days, the turf is as hard
> as any concrete or asphalt strip you'll ever land on.

Around here, instructors take students to turf strips to practice soft field
landings. They don't do it where you're from? Maybe a different syllabus.

moo

[[email protected]]

Happy Dog wrote:

>>>Both are irrelevant. You use brakes during a soft field landing unless
conditions, rare conditions, prohibit them<<<

Well, this has been beaten to death. Dog, if you want to risk busting a
nose gear and pranging the prop you keep doin' it your way. All the
reasons for NOT using brakes on a soft field landing (regardless of
field length) have been laid out and you still say we're all wrong.
Okay then...

>>>Are you this obnoxious in person?

>>>Yes. But you wouldn't see it that way. Welcome to Usenet. <<<

Well at least you're honest. I can appreciate that.

[Michael]

Bob Moore wrote:
> > He was a captain for a major airline. They can pretty much ALL fly
> > that way, excepting the ocasional screwup. They've all had thousands
> > of hours to practice.
>
> Why, thank you Michael!

Don't get too excited, and don't start feeling too special. I know and
flew with a few people who managed to rack up hours in 5 digits without
being airline pilots. The worst of them flew better and was more
impressive overall than the best airline pilot I ever flew with.

It's not that being an airline pilots is something special - it's just
that if you fly that many hours, you're bound to get good just by sheer
repetition - and nothing really substitutes for time in the seat.

Michael

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in message
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>>>Both are irrelevant. You use brakes during a soft field landing unless
> conditions, rare conditions, prohibit them<<<
>
> Well, this has been beaten to death. Dog, if you want to risk busting a
> nose gear and pranging the prop you keep doin' it your way. All the
> reasons for NOT using brakes on a soft field landing (regardless of
> field length) have been laid out and you still say we're all wrong.
> Okay then...

It has been tossed around and, clearly, my experience and training differs
from some others and my assertion WRT what constitutes a soft field landing
and technique is being rethought. As I said, my training involved quite a
few turf landings and they were to be treated as soft field landings. Holes
was the claimed issue. In most cases, the turf is firm enough to allow
braking during the bit right after TD since there's still plenty of
elevator authority to keep the nose light. But if this isn't even
considered a soft field, then the point is, well, pointless. As I said, I'm
doing my own research.
>
>>>>Are you this obnoxious in person?
>
>>>>Yes. But you wouldn't see it that way. Welcome to Usenet. <<<
>
> Well at least you're honest. I can appreciate that.

Usenet is a place where the id is forever trying to come out and play. But,
it's also a place where it's difficult to be dishonest if you post from an
ISP and archive your posts. Even people who switch sockpuppets usually get
caught and suffer irreparable damage. And, thus far, there seems to be
little to risk from posting whatever opinion one feels. The medium lends
itself to honesty. And, unfortunately, occasional cowardice.

moo

[Bob Moore]

"Michael" > wrote
> Don't get too excited, and don't start feeling too special.

I started feeling somewhat special right after my first
carrier landings. :-)

Bob Moore

[Matt Whiting]

Michael wrote:

> Bob Moore wrote:
>
>>>He was a captain for a major airline. They can pretty much ALL fly
>>>that way, excepting the ocasional screwup. They've all had thousands
>>>of hours to practice.
>>
>>Why, thank you Michael!
>
>
> Don't get too excited, and don't start feeling too special. I know and
> flew with a few people who managed to rack up hours in 5 digits without
> being airline pilots. The worst of them flew better and was more
> impressive overall than the best airline pilot I ever flew with.

Yes, and the one that I know did it mainly via flight instruction and
scenic flights of 10-15 minutes duration. I suspect he averaged at
least 10 times as many landings per flight hour as an airline pilot with
similar flight time. And we are, after all, talking about skill at
landing in this case. :-)


Matt