Problems reported with landing gear, brakes, reversers, and shock absorbers

They had multiple major subsystem failures. They could only follow a partial landing checklist obviously with no flaps or reversers, and they had to violate the airspeed requirement to stay on that 3o glideslope. What didn't work was the A320, the flight was turned around and they had to make a risky emergency landing. That's what's called not working.

I'm not going speculate about anything said by a bunch of low credibility people. It's most likely they couldn't believe the main drive cable would ever snap, and figured one brake would be enough for the two cars in the more usual power outage event.

"We will coup anyone we want" - Elon Musk

part of the A320 didn't work.All the systems, including the rest of the A320, to handle such an event did and no one was hurt

Its part of the redundancy built into airplanes and air crew training. Nothing is perfectly safe, so folks try to design stuff so when things go wrong there are alternatives.

Things will go wrong, there will be the odd disaster, but flying is safer now then it was twenty or thirty years ago. And considerably safer than in the 50s and 60s!

John

Quote:

"The aircraft took off to the southeast before doing a 180° turn and tracking to the northwest of Minneapolis. DL1205 then orbited to the west of the airport, completing several large loops before lining up for an approach back into Minneapolis. The plane maintained a low altitude throughout the orbit, staying close to 6,000 feet, and reached a maximum speed of 325 miles (524 kilometers) per hour. N342NW was moving at around

1. This is complete BS. You are restricted to a maximum of 250 knots below

1. The typical landing speed for an A320 is around 130kts to 140kts. Crossing the threshold at 210 mph (182 kts) means an unstabilized approach and an automatic go around.

2. There is no way they could check the thrust reversers in the air. The plane has to be on the ground before the reversers can be actuated.

1. There is no way they could check the shock absorbers. They are built into the landing gear. There is no status indicator light on the panel and no landing checklist item for the shocks. About the only idicator for the landing gear is whether it is up or down.

2. The author of this article is not a pilot and has no qualifications to write about aircraft emergencies:

Quote:

Andrew Curran

Lead Journalist - Australasia - A Masters level education and appetite for travel combines to make Andrew an incredible aviation brain with decades of insight behind him. Working closely with airlines including Qantas and Virgin Australia, Andrew’s first-hand knowledge of the challenges and opportunities facing Australian airlines adds exciting depth and color to his work and sees him providing commentary to ABC News and more. Based in Melbourne, Australia.

Forgot the most obvious flaw. Aircraft speed in measured in knots, not MPH.

A knot is a unit of speed, equal to one nautical mile per hour. 1 nautical mile = 1.1508 statute miles.

This track-drop toilet on an Italian passenger train is designed such that it forces outside air _up_ the drain pipe while the train is at speed:

The actual source article did not mention ground speed:

John

That's not a flaw, it's "engineering accuracy."

You can do anything you want in an emergency. It was more serious that they would do that speed with an incompletely retracted landing gear. That's a good way to make sure it's broken.

They didn't have any flaps. A little bit of excess airspeed is far more preferable to an excess descent rate. It's the descent rate that kills you. It wasn't a go around because it was flying as planned.

Obviously some real time diagnostics lost continuity on the reverser actuator circuit which means there's a high probability they won't actuate on landing. Accidental reverser actuation in the air has caused numerous crashes. Most manufacturers claim the pilot should be able to handle it, but most don't. It's particularly hazardous on takeoffs and landings, too close to ground to recover from a possible stall orientation.

That one does sound suspicious, like maybe they misunderstood a fault code.

Failing to mention the loss of flaps was a major oversight.

And how in hades do all those unrelated things go bad at once. It would have to be a ground crew intervention.

Actually it's 1 minute of latitude per hour at constant longitude at the equator.

Knots for speeds in fluids, MPH for ground speed.

Super useful though--a nautical mile is one minute of latitude (almost exactly) and 2000 yards (close).

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Yes, but he is writing for the general public and may have translated knots to MPH for the public's familiarity with MPH. Ask him about that.

Don't you mean it's 1 minute of longitude at the equator?

I love it when people use this line of reasoning. While there were numerous failures, NONE OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, the fact that there was one, thin line that was not crossed somehow is a sign that the system worked "as intended". No, it was intended that the various systems would not fail. That's why the pilots declared an emergency and the emergency vehicles showed up as soon as the plane landed. None of the crew or passengers thought this was working "as intended".

I learned about systems often not working as intended at a nuclear plant near me. A number of near misses have occurred throughout the life of the plant. This is why the Indian River plant is being shut down. They don't want "near misses" so close to New York City.

The people who live with critical systems understand it is just a matter of time before the events cross the line as they have done so many times in the past.

I listened to one of the many videos on youtube about airline incidents. A pilot declared an emergency to land because they had been circling too long and were running out of fuel. The tower was not grasping the severity of the issue asking more questions. The pilot announced the runway he was landing on and told the controller to get everyone out of the way. I believe they landed safely, but not because of the controller.

Probation? Flying a simulator counts exactly the same as flying a plane, except you don't die when you crash. Mess up and it is no different from messing up in a plane, it's on your record the same way and you can be removed from being a pilot.

What an idiotic thing to say. If it worked properly, why did they declare an emergency and have emergency equipment at the runway to deal with the further problems that could have happened?

It is clear the pilot had no expectation it would all end well. Maybe the pilot was suffering from panophobia?