Why Haven't Airbus A-320s Been Grounded?

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

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

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

Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
until
they've been repaired?
--

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

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

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

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

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

Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
until
they've been repaired?
--

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

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

JG

wrote:

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

JG
What problems are the FAA having with NWA replacement mechanics? FYI,
most of the replacements have come from other legacy carriers such as US
Airways, United, etc. that have been laid off. They have plenty of
experience from their former jobs with those carriers. The only real
problem has been getting them accustomed to the paperwork that NWA uses.
Every airline uses different paperwork and computer tracking.

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

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

Setting the record straight,

BJ

B. Jensen wrote:



wrote:

and engine flames on T.O. are becoming a frequent
occurance.

JG


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

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

Newps wrote:


B. Jensen wrote:



wrote:

and engine flames on T.O. are becoming a frequent

occurance.

JG



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


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


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

BJ

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

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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

Or has an AD been issued, but without the requirement to "ground" them
until they've been repaired?

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

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

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

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