Try this with an A320 and you’d probably be talking about a writen off aircraft, at best.
Sometimes over engineering the landing gear is a good thing matthew 😉
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880524-0.htm
During descent from FL350 for an IFR arrival to New Orleans, the flight crew noted green and yellow returns on the weather radar with some isolated red cells, left and right of the intended flight path. Before entering clouds at FL300, the captain selected continuous engine ignition and activated engine anti-ice systems. The crew selected a route between the 2 cells, displayed as red on the weather radar. Heavy rain, hail and turbulence were encountered. At about FL165, both engines flamed out. The APU was started and aircraft electrical power was restored while descending through abou FL106. Attempts to wind-mill restart the engines were unsuccessful. Both engines lit-off by using starters, but neither would accelerate to idle; advancing the thrust levers increased the EGT beyond limits. The engines were shut down to avoid a catastrophic failure. An emergency landing was made on a 6060 feetx120 feet grass strip next to a levee without further damage to the aircraft. Investigation revealed that the aircraft encountered a level 4 thunderstorm but engines flamed out, though they had met the FAA specs for water ingestion. The aircraft had minor hail damage; the #2 engine was damaged from overtemperature.
The 737 was later FLOWN out of the levee and had its engines replaced
Photo of it then:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/taca-msy/photo.shtml
and now (still in service btw 🙂 ):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/473066/L/
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 20:20
You’ll have had your tea then, Sandy? :rolleyes:
bit of harmless banter 😀
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 20:20
You’ll have had your tea then, Sandy? :rolleyes:
bit of harmless banter 😀
By: Grey Area - 15th November 2004 at 20:20
You’ll have had your tea then, Sandy? :rolleyes:
By: Grey Area - 15th November 2004 at 20:20
You’ll have had your tea then, Sandy? :rolleyes:
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 20:18
Just some of them, just some of them… :diablo:
One’s too many.
the only good CFM is a 56
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 20:18
Just some of them, just some of them… :diablo:
One’s too many.
the only good CFM is a 56
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 20:14
Not over-engineering at all, what the gear was built for…so one would expect it not to fail, wouldn’t we?
[TONGUE-IN-CHEEK]At least the Airbus’s engine wouldn’t flame-out[/TONGUE-IN-CHEEK]
from the same guy who said Boeing over engineer their landing gear.
Make your piggin mind up.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the engines… they are CFMs… and CFM power the A320 😉
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 20:14
Not over-engineering at all, what the gear was built for…so one would expect it not to fail, wouldn’t we?
[TONGUE-IN-CHEEK]At least the Airbus’s engine wouldn’t flame-out[/TONGUE-IN-CHEEK]
from the same guy who said Boeing over engineer their landing gear.
Make your piggin mind up.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the engines… they are CFMs… and CFM power the A320 😉
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 19:56
Oh dearie me – more “even-handed” propaganda……… :p
Heck no, geniune Intrigue.
gotta admit though, the 737 is tough bird. Its down to Boeings over engineering of the 737 that let this come to the conclusion it did
By: Bmused55 - 15th November 2004 at 19:56
Oh dearie me – more “even-handed” propaganda……… :p
Heck no, geniune Intrigue.
gotta admit though, the 737 is tough bird. Its down to Boeings over engineering of the 737 that let this come to the conclusion it did
By: Grey Area - 15th November 2004 at 19:39
Oh dearie me – more “even-handed” propaganda……… :p
By: Grey Area - 15th November 2004 at 19:39
Oh dearie me – more “even-handed” propaganda……… :p
Sign In
November 15, 2004 at 5:36 pm