Talk:JetBlue Flight 292

message: As the original article states, a similar event took place in Columbus, Ohio. A friend of mine who works for American West Airlines (R.A.) mentioned the Columbus incident to me last night over the phone. He also mentioned the Airbus was designed to turn the wheel to 90 degrees in the event of a system failure so that the plane would land just like we all saw. Otherwise, if the wheel is not straight or perpendicular (to the fuselage's axis), the plane might steer off the runway. The plane is designed to perform exactly the way it did in this type of situation. The original article says "it appeared the wheel was turned 90 degrees". This did not occur by accident.
By the way, I do not have time to confirm this and did not wish to edit the original news page. If someone wishes to find this information and add it, please do so. Thanks.
:I'd really like to see a source for this, as somebody has added it to the article. Neurophyre 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done extensive searching to find this information and I cannot find a source for it.  I am therefore removing it from the article.  It is better for us to be silent on an issue if we can't back it up, than to mislead people with erroneous information. Johntex\talk 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to an AP story, the nosegear is designed to rotate before retracting. I have not researched whether this is for the reason that the first comment in this thread states ("if the wheel is not straight or perpendicular...the plane might steer off the runway"), but the fact is that the landing gear's rotation was not an accident. cluth 21:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Currently, the second paragraph says "ninety degrees to the left, perpendicular to the direction of flight".  It would better stated if it says "in the direction of the fuselage".  I changed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.214.163 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Really late weighing in on this one, but I heard the same thing (landing gear designed to turn 90 degrees) from several aviators and mechanics. It may indeed have been a design failure that caused the problem in the first place, but a design feature that it failed in such a manner. For example, if a tire filled with a foam is punctured it won't deflate immediately, but it will deflate eventually. While the tire still deflates, the manner in which it deflates is indeed a feature while the method by which the tire failed could still be the root cause of the problem. Just saying... — BQZip01 — talk 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a YouTube video showing a photograph of the failed nose gear component. The 90 degree position was the result of catastrophic failure. It is clear that rotation limiting lugs were sheared off in low-cycle fatigue - Indicating a design shortfall - No part of an aircraft should fail after only a few thousand actuations. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpsgn9LM0G8 at time 21:29  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The landing gear is designed to turn to 90 degrees in case of system failure

message: It was not designed to do that.  In all cases, where the nose wheel turned sideways, it was the result of improper re-assembly of the nose gear unit, following overhaul. Just another example of poor design, by the French, in this case.  Complies with the age-old axiom, that if the design is such that it can be assembled or operated improperly, sooner or later it will be.
See:  http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/JetBlueLAX.htm
EditorASC 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really late weighing in on this one, but I heard the same thing (landing gear designed to turn 90 degrees) from several aviators and mechanics. It may indeed have been a design failure that caused the problem in the first place, but a design feature that it failed in such a manner. For example, if a tire filled with a foam is punctured it won't deflate immediately, but it will deflate eventually. While the tire still deflates, the manner in which it deflates is indeed a feature while the method by which the tire failed could still be the root cause of the problem. Just saying... — BQZip01 — talk 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a YouTube video showing a photograph of the failed nose gear component. The 90 degree position was the result of catastrophic failure. It is clear that rotation limiting lugs were sheared off in low-cycle fatigue - Indicating a design shortfall - No part of an aircraft should fail after only a few thousand actuations. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpsgn9LM0G8 at time 21:29  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: I would vote to keep the article, because it illustrates both how improper maintenance can create a safety hazard and how pilot planning and skills can overcome such anomalies. The fact that no one was injured, drives home that fact.  
EditorASC 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break (2)

message: Here we are in 2010.  Is this article still notable?  For airline incidents, what is the minimum standard for notability?  That is being questioned in Qantas Flight 32.KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Five Years later

message: MSNBC interviewd by phone a passenger named "Tod" (I didn't catch his last name) just now. Here are the notes that I got, if someone wants to work them into the article, here it is:
About 10 minutes after takeoff, the captain made an in-flight announcement to report there was a problem with landing gear
About 20 minutes later, there was another announcement that they were doing a fly-by at another airport to see what the problem was
About 15 minutes later, it was announced that the landing gear was down (extended), but was turned 90 degrees and would't retract.
Through the event, the passengers were watching MSNBC, getting "lots of information" between the TV and crew announcemnts. The TV's wern't turned off until about 3-4 minutes before landing.
They also shifted people and luggage to the back of the plane to lighten the front end.
Reported everyone was calm and "prepared to do what they had to do".
--Oreckel 01:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any evidence for passengers watching MSNBC, not even on the MSNBC website.  Do you have a link for this? Johntex\talk 02:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't. I forgot to mention this and I thought I did - this was a TV interview about 3 or 4 minutes after passengers started to get off the plane, so this was just what I heard. The passenger said he was watching the TV, and since it was an MSNBC interview, he chuckled and added ", we were watching MSNBC, actually". MSNBC's website probably won't have a commentary - I doubt it will ever be documented in full on the internet, so the only source is a TV broadcast, which I don't have the means to digitize. --Oreckel 02:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MSNCB Testimonial

message: Because of objections to this being on In The News, I've added this to DYN.  zanimum
:translation, please?  Johntex\talk 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If not ITN 

message: :It's a known fact that this plane had in-flight satellite TV, and it was reported that passengers were actually watching TV coverage until 3-4 minutes before the flight ended. We had a paragraph on this about an hour ago and now it's gone - can we restore it? I thought it was a rather interesting piece of information, since this is the first time to my knowledge that passengers were able to get information about their situation and see their damaged plane while in the air. --Oreckel 02:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Edwards Airforce base was being questioned as well, due to its wide and long runway. --.::Imdaking::.   Bow | DOWN  03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the TV angle is very interesting.  I'd just like to have a source for it, please?  At one point, it was said that the TV's were on until 3-4 minutes before the flight, at another point, someone seemed to be saying they were turned off as soon as there was a problem.  I'm all for putting it in if we have a reputable source.  Same for the Edwards AFB consideration.  Johntex\talk 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look at various articles to see that it has the technology to provide in-flight satellite TV. I've also heard conflicting reports - purley on TV coverage which isn't a citable source. I heard a passenger say it was 3-4 minutes before the ended, but a friend has told me they heard 30 minutes. Apparently some people say it was turned off right away - I can't be sure. Check above for the "MSNBC Testimonial" header I added - those are the details I heard. --Oreckel 03:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: LA Times says passengers watched "the drama on televisions": http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-092105plane_lat,0,3067510.story?coll=la-home-headlines and also says that the TV's were off "well before landing". --Oreckel 03:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I know all the JetBlue planes have satellite TV--a wonderful way to spend a flight, that's for sure. http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-jetblue,0,6586766.story?coll=ktla-news-1 says the passengers were watching TV: "Passengers witnessed their own crisis from televisions onboard the aircraft. 'Communications were cut well before we landed,' a passenger, Mike Miceli, told Channel 4 news. 'But we watched it probably for an hour or so.'"Kevin M Marshall 03:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for finding the sources.  I've added this to the article.  Johntex\talk 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passengers had TVs 

message: The question of whether the landing gear image is usable or not is under discussion here.  I encourage you to join the discussion.  Johntex\talk 21:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Use Image

message: The article states: "Once the nose touched down, full wheel braking was used, but the thrust reversers were not deployed so as to prevent any potential damage to the engines."
However, my understanding had been (and the article later states) that reverse thrust was not employed in order to keep as much weight off of the nose gear as possible. Which interpretation is correct?
cluth 21:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too, several months later. You are right; I'll fix the text.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrust Reversers 

message: The following is still in the article: "Fox News reported that the runway was expected to be closed overnight to allow the plane to be cleared from the runway, but airport authorities hoped to have it reopened the following day." Was the runway reopened or not?  Is it important?  Geffb 22:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runway reopening 

message: The article mentions that the pilot correctly chose the 11,000+ ft runway at LAX instead of Long Beach, which has a 10,000 ft. runway.  Palmdale has a 12,000 ft. runway but it wasn't chosen. Archtrain 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: odd fact not in article (probably shouldn't be)

message: Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748.  Both subject to deletion.  Regarding notability on airliner incidents, this article involving JetBlue's incident for now is a standard. KyuuA4 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incident Notability: Two Other Landing Gear Incidents

message: According to IMDB, actress Taryn Manning was on this flight.  brain (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  more odd trivia 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Satellite-View-LAX.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Six years later maybe WP:RECENTISM becomes more apparent. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not "official" guideline, but as a common reference point I think its helpful in trying to determine what aircraft accidents deserve a stand alone article (and I don't think this one does). As for "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." whatever, if any, safety recommendations were issued by the NTSB/adopted by the FAA I'd argue they are not "significant" (though I am still reading, and if someone else knows better, I'd like to hear it). A few lines in JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents and Los Angeles International Airport#Incidents involving LAX is sufficient, it doesn't even really merit mention in Airbus 320#Accidents and incidents list. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has sufficient sourcing and coverage to meet WP:GNG. The landing gear was in fact redesigned in response to this and other failures of A320 series nosegears, so you can say this incident and others like it had an impact on the entire A320 fleet. Since the A320 is a popular aircraft flown worldwide, this would meet both the "lasting effects" and "geographic scope" of WP:EVENT. Perhaps what is really needed is to expand the article to cover not just JetBlue 292 but the other A320 gear failures as well. This would entail a rename but this article presents a strong foundation since to my knowledge the other A320 gear failures do not have articles. N419BH 23:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, those are good points, and the argument that safety recommendations affect the entire fleet is one I make all the time. Still, I feel that since this failure mode is not (arguably) catastrophic, it just isn't enough. One thing that I think is telling: the NTSB did not issue a full-length Aircraft Accident Report (AAR), but rather just a Aircraft Accident Brief/Summary. Well, afaik: Freakin' NTSB docket system...I can't make that work for me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Here is the brief (the current link in the article is dead): http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20050927X01540&ntsbno=LAX05IA312&akey=1 Apparently it is classified by the NTSB as an "incident", not "accident" LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article, the landing gear had already been redesigned before this incident. There had been at least six similar incidents previously. The design change was just awaiting final approval when the JetBlue incident occurred. Media coverage seems to be concentrated in the 2-3 weeks following the incident with little, if any, significant coverage after 2005. I feel that this was news, and not an encyclopedic topic. The incident can be mentioned in the Airbus A320 article. Pburka (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're actually getting at what I'm suggesting. Why are we discussing deleting this one article when at least six prior incidents, and one subsequent incident, have occurred with A320 landing gears getting stuck 90 degrees off? There is barely a mention in the A320's article, but there is sufficient reliable coverage, including multiple NTSB reports, that can be used to form a complete article on the entire topic. JetBlue 292 has all the press coverage because it happened to occur with a lot of TV cameras around and the landing itself was broadcast live. I propose we re-name this article to Airbus A230 family landing gear incidents, and rewrite it to include information from all the incidents along with the design fix and its implementation. N419BH 03:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I agree! Pburka (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That definitely sounds like the best way. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Assembling an article on the A320 landing gear from individual NTSB reports is Original Research. You need secondary sources that have covered the topic. And as you have indicated, if its notable,  it should be the A320 aircraft article rather than a separate oneGraemeLeggett (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I have yet to find a source that lists all of the involved incidents by specific flight number. I'm sure Airbus has one but I'm equally sure they'd rather keep that information quiet. A quick search of the NTSB database will uncover all of the incidents occurring on U.S. soil, which is at least five: two JetBlue flights, one Northwest flight, one United flight, and one America West flight. There are several sources that mention seven previous landing gear incidents (these are prior to the Northwest incident) so there are at least 8 involved. So other sources have already made the connection. Original Research is not violated since the original sources have already made the connection and the purpose of the LA times article at least was to explore the problem and discuss the solution (namely the landing gear redesign). Where we must be careful is allowing the article to deviate from "there was a problem with the landing gear" to someone trying to argue that the airplane is unsafe as a result or is worse than the 737. That is where the WP:OR issues actually lie. I'll do some digging through the NTSB archives in the morning to see what I can come up with. N419BH 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on JetBlue Flight 292. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925063524/http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11099491 to http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11099491
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: this defect has caused no less then 24 incidents.  This defect should have its own page or at least be imcluded on the A320 page 100.38.247.36 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A320 NOSE GEAR FAILURES