Trouble on Sydney-Melbourne Flight: Faulty Landing Gear Light

[tribdog]

A Quantas airplane flying between Sydney and Melbourne yesterday had to turn around and return because a "faulty landing gear" light came on. Why turn around? You got to land either way.

 

[lisab]

I guess the question is, where do you want to crash, if it comes to that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A Quantas airplane flying between Sydney and Melbourne yesterday had to turn around and return because a "faulty landing gear" light came on. Why turn around? You got to land either way.

They want to land as soon as possible. If they are closer to the point of departure than the destination, they turn around.

 

[tribdog]

Personally, if the plane has no problem flying but might have a problem landing, I'd rather take my chances at my destination. I definitely don't want them to turn around so that I can die sooner.

 

[BobG]

They want to land as soon as possible. If they are closer to the point of departure than the destination, they turn around.

I think they're trying to skimp a little by landing (or crashing) before they've served the meals. If you get a burnt meal ...

They do seem to always turn back: http://www.howwasyourflight.com/complaint/united-flight-888-had-faulty-landing-gear-again/

 

[Evo]

I'd want them to fly until as much fuel is used as possible.

 

[turbo]

If there is faulty landing gear, I want that sucker to fly as far as possible before landing, so that the engines are practically running on fumes. Skidding down the tarmac throwing showers of sparks in a fully-fueled plane just doesn't appeal to me.

Edit: You got me, Evo. I was interrupted by a GOP robo-call while posting. Great minds, though...

 

[fileen]

I'd want them to fly until as much fuel is used as possible.

that made me laugh and choke on my stew

 

[lisab]

Don't planes dump fuel before an emergency landing?

 

[flatmaster]

Qantus, Qantus Never crashed.
-Rainman

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Don't planes dump fuel before an emergency landing?

Yes. But I don't think all jets have this ability. I do remember a number of situations where the plane circled for hours to burn the remaining fuel.

 

[Andre]

Reverting to the OP, if there is something wrong with the landing gear, you got to assume that things are sticking out of the wings and belly. That's not healthy for an aircraft. If you'd accelerate to cruising speed, beautiful mechanisms may suffer structural damage leading to catastrophical results. So you must maintain airspeed below landing gear limit speeds. That's no fun. You can fly for hours that way, but that's disdaining complications, what if there was a hydraulic leak too, caused by that same problem? That is guaranteed to ruin your day.

Return to land ASAP is an excellent decision made by a superior pilot who used his superior judgement to avoid situations that required his superior skills. You can nag about it but everybody is alive and well.

Edit and yes fuel dumping is standard practice.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Perhaps the destination airport was not as well equipped to handle a possible emergency.

 

[Moonbear]

I'd want them to fly until as much fuel is used as possible.

Don't planes dump fuel before an emergency landing?

That's what I was thinking too, get to the destination and then circle until the fuel is nearly used up, or dump it then, rather than dumping a full tank!

Reverting to the OP, if there is something wrong with the landing gear, you got to assume that things are sticking out of the wings and belly. That's not healthy for an aircraft. If you'd accelerate to cruising speed, beautiful mechanisms may suffer structural damage leading to catastrophical results.

Ah, that makes more sense. If the problem is they can't retract the landing gear, then they can't fly with it sticking out I suppose (though if they couldn't dump fuel and had to circle, I'd rather be heading closer to my destination instead of doing circles...circles are killer on my stomach). Do they just get some light saying there's a problem, or can they get more specific information about the position the landing gear is stuck in? If it's retracted and just can't be lowered again for landing, I'd rather do that wherever I'm going.

Perhaps the destination airport was not as well equipped to handle a possible emergency.

That would be the exception to my desire to get to my destination. If it was some small airport with short runways, perhaps, then yes, direct the flight to some other airport or turn around.

 

[Andre]

If the problem is they can't retract the landing gear, then they can't fly with it sticking out I suppose (though if they couldn't dump fuel and had to circle, I'd rather be heading closer to my destination instead of doing circles...circles are killer on my stomach).

Sorry Moonbear, it's a bit different. They can dump the lot in minutes. That's only a problem for the folks below. Second, you wouldn't notice a bit about those 'circles'. The ear vasculatory system reponds to changes in accerelation only. Without visual clues from outside you would never notice 'circling'

can they get more specific information about the position the landing gear is stuck in?

Basically, no it's just a switch in the end of the cycle. Imagine the complexability of having camera's on every item that may fail; although it could be the future.

 

[turbo]

Basically, no it's just a switch in the end of the cycle. Imagine the complexability of having camera's on every item that may fail; although it could be the future.

Yep! Limit switches offer little real information, but can be interlocked to prevent full operation of related systems, even if the fault is trivial.

 

[Moonbear]

Sorry Moonbear, it's a bit different. They can dump the lot in minutes. That's only a problem for the folks below.

It's a horrible waste of fuel to dump it if they instead could have been on the way to the destination before dealing with the problem landing.

Second, you wouldn't notice a bit about those 'circles'. The ear vasculatory system reponds to changes in accerelation only. Without visual clues from outside you would never notice 'circling'

That's not true. What makes one sick is not having the visual cues to match the ears telling you they're going in circles! The vestibular system of the ears is not a vascular system either.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's not true. What makes one sick is not having the visual cues to match the ears telling you they're going in circles! The vestibular system of the ears is not a vascular system either.

First, going in circles requires acceleration. Second, according to Moonbear I can spin around in a chair without getting sick. I conclude neither one is correct

 

[Moonbear]

Second, according to Moonbear I can spin around in a chair without getting sick.

I made no such claim!

 

[Andre]

It's a horrible waste of fuel to dump it if they instead could have been on the way to the destination before dealing with the problem landing.

A big smoking crater would even be worse. And with staying below gear limit speed, it would take a long time, more than enough to deplete hydraulic system pressure,

That's not true. What makes one sick is not having the visual cues to match the ears telling you they're going in circles! The vestibular system of the ears is not a vascular system either.

Anyway, with only 10-15 degrees of bank your ears would report rather quickly (and deceptively) that everything is in steady state, no changes/

 

[youngoldman]

Personally, if the plane has no problem flying but might have a problem landing, I'd rather take my chances at my destination. I definitely don't want them to turn around so that I can die sooner.

That's all well and good if they don't tell you the plane has got landing gear dramas, but if they do I'd rather have the 'I'm going to die! I'm going to die! I'm going to die!' phase shortened as much as possible

 

[turbo]

That's all well and good if they don't tell you the plane has got landing gear dramas, but if they do I'd rather have the 'I'm going to die! I'm going to die! I'm going to die!' phase shortened as much as possible

OK, though I have conflicts regarding whether my plane crashes at my origination or at my destination. At least I might have gotten my ticket-price worth if I crashed at my destination. Duh...

 

[edward]

You should always crash at the closest point to where your relatives will have to come to indentify the body.

 

[Danger]

I'm with Andre on this. For one thing, a 'Faulty Landing Gear' light doesn't specify what the problem is. If you already have three in the hold when it comes on, it might mean that you can't extend it. It seems unlikely to me that anyone would think twice about a return if the light came on before the gear was retracted; they'd still be within a mile of the airport.
The other thing is that one fault indicator could be symptomatic of other faults. As Andre mentioned, it could be caused by a hydraulic leak. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to continue on to my destination with the possibility of losing aeleron, rudder, and elevator control somewhere along the way.

 

[grant9076]

That's what I was thinking too, get to the destination and then circle until the fuel is nearly used up, or dump it then, rather than dumping a full tank!


Ah, that makes more sense. If the problem is they can't retract the landing gear, then they can't fly with it sticking out I suppose (though if they couldn't dump fuel and had to circle, I'd rather be heading closer to my destination instead of doing circles...circles are killer on my stomach). Do they just get some light saying there's a problem, or can they get more specific information about the position the landing gear is stuck in? If it's retracted and just can't be lowered again for landing, I'd rather do that wherever I'm going.


That would be the exception to my desire to get to my destination. If it was some small airport with short runways, perhaps, then yes, direct the flight to some other airport or turn around.

Actually, if the gear is stuck down, the extra fuel consumption rate will likely prevent the aircraft from arriving at the destination with the required fuel reserves. Running out of fuel inflight is not a good situation. If this is the case, then the pilots did the right thing.