Talk:JetBlue Flight 292

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:JetBlue Airways Flight 292)
Jump to: navigation, search

The landing gear is designed to turn to 90 degrees in case of system failure[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

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.


EditorASC 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

French? Messier Dowty also makes landing gears for some Boeing planes, including the 787 and as a subcontractor for parts of the 777 landing gear. Archtrain 20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Notablility in the long-term[edit]

This is a stupid question, but what's the purpose of having an article in an encyclopedia about an event that's occuring over a few hours right now? If they land safely, as we all sincerely hope they do, this won't even be notable. -- SCZenz 00:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Events can still be notable after they happen. We have an article about September 11th. --Oreckel 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Sept 11 was notable for its deaths, structural loss, and repurcusions. -- user:zanimum
Granted, it was an extreme example, but still... --Oreckel 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
But I wasn't claiming events aren't notable after they happen. The Magna carta was signed almost 800 years ago, and it remains notable today. I was claiming this wasn't notable, although zanium may have addressed that part of my point. -- SCZenz 01:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Airline buffs will still consider this successful landing notable, and things that airplane buffs like are just as important as thing Star Trek buffs like. -- user:zanimum
If that's true, fair enough. But it seems almsot creepy to me to be rushing to get edits in as events happen, and it's certainly more appropriate for Wikinews than here. -- SCZenz 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
True, but Wikinews is still rather hidden. We've established some of our notablility not just with the overall concept of Wikipedia and breadth of topics, but with our currentness. I hate to sound superficial in anyway, but we owe our success to September 11th. It boosted our Google rating, as we were one of the most complete pages on the net on the topic. That brought thousands of readers and writers to the project for the first time, many of whom have stayed. -- user:zanimum


As a pilot, I can assure you that the incident will lead to major scrutiny of the airbus 320 programme, and WILL be notable for some time. Fawcett5 01:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say at this point that I stand corrected. -- SCZenz 02:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In case this comes up for deletion again, I would vote 'no'. The problem with the landing gear itself is not that notable, but the extensive media coverage, and in particular the fact that the passengers were watching the TV coverage of themselves as it happened, is notable. In fact, I would argue that the passengers watching the emergency on TV was historic, in a way. --Jaysweet 20:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please define "notable" or "notability" in this context? If this refers to the ability to include references, I would like to point out that there are currently at least 3 dead links in the references. Is the correct practice to remove dead links? If "notability" refers to the importance of the page for providing pertinent or substantive information, I would recommend keeping it since I've found the content quite useful in reviewing these types of airline accidents. -- Jdevola (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Section break (2)[edit]

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)

Five Years later[edit]

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)

Right or left?[edit]

MSNBC said the wheel was tiled to the right, not the left. I'm not sure which is correct. --Oreckel 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Everything I've heard is left. -- user:zanimum

MSNCB Testimonial[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Does anyone know if the full TV coverage footage is available online anywhere? Not just for the landing but of the entire flight. I wasn't by a TV as it was happening and I'm interested in seeing what the news coverage was like. Thanks! --George


Can we move it to the bottom of the page, as not to confuse readers? -- user:zanimum

Who does it confuse? It's on the top for every article.--Pharos 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Policy is that you can't. They can look at the link, and see everyone votes to keep, and forget about it. But concealing a VfD is a no-no for obvious reasons. -- SCZenz 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Just isn't welcoming for people discovering us for the first time. Any other AfD article is relatively obscure, unlike this. -- user:zanimum
Yeah, and you're stuck with it for a week. I hear you. You could find out how to put in a request to an admin to have it removed as frivelous and/or overwhelmingly decided--I know they can do that. -- SCZenz 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I can? That's cool. I'll do it anyone can find that for me. -- user:zanimum
The news on Hurricane Rita(? - I forgot the name) is on the front page as news.. I found this article in Current events and if other people are looking for news on the subject to they'll see that annoying article deletion template too — CuaHL 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
How does this relate to speeding up the AfD process? -- user:zanimum
I've skimmed over all the AfD policy pages, can't find any reference to speeding up the process, even in the precedents section. -- user:zanimum
I thought I saw it done on the deletion log earlier today, but I guess that was a case of obvious vandalism. This is actually getting reasoned delete votes, so it wouldn't count as that. -- SCZenz 02:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fawcett5's taken the AfD notice off as of 21:29 EST, September 21, 2005. -- user:zanimum

I agree with this move. This issue arises on a fairly regular basis, and once it is clear the page will be kept removing the header is standard procedure. It might be a good idea to have a general policy on removing vfd headers from breaking news stories. - SimonP 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
How about "If an article is properly marked as a "Current Event", it may not be marked for Articles for Deletion (AfD) until at least two weeks into its existance." -- user:zanimum
While I voted merge, this proposal is a good idea, since once the news event fades away, we can say if it truely had an impact and not worry about "recentism." Zach (Sound Off) 13:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Just to archive this until people are less objectionary (new word creation) to this content, if ever. -- user:zanimum

  • A few minutes after the incident, JetBlue aired a commercial on some television stations.
  • ABC was airing a repeat episode of the television series Lost while the incident was concluding. Lost focuses on the survivors of a downed plane.

If not ITN[edit]

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)

I had to rush, the computer lab was closing as I typed. I posted this story in In The News. Pharos objected, and removed it. I added the article to Did You Know, bypassing procedure. Pharos objected, and removed it. It would be nice to have it featured somewhere. -- user:zanimum

Passengers had TVs[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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)
LA Times says passengers watched "the drama on televisions":,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)
Well, I know all the JetBlue planes have satellite TV--a wonderful way to spend a flight, that's for sure.,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)
Great, thanks for finding the sources. I've added this to the article. Johntex\talk 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Image to replace disputed fair use screenshot[edit]


User:Andrewmarino has graciously uploaded an excellent photograph he took of the landing after I found it on and suggested the idea to him. I'm going to add it to the article, but suggest here that perhaps the close-up screenshot of dubious copyright status be eventually removed in its favor. Neurophyre 17:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But isn't this essentially {{permission}} then? -- user:zanimum
Not at all. It was generously uploaded under copyrighted free use, which is absolutely the freest license possible.--Pharos 21:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, clearly we need to stick with images that can legally be used. It would be great to be able to use (or find a replacement for) the close-up image that illustrates how the landing gear was turned. Any ideas on getting that type of image back in the article? Johntex\talk 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

CBS News Typo?[edit]

The CBS News website had an article which stated:

"Christiana Lund, 25, just moved to New York from the L.A. area, and had gone back to pick up her car, which was with her on the plane."

Her CAR? Did they mean CAT, or can an Airbus 320 actually carry a car? -- Silent 3 13:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No that's definetly a typo. -- user:zanimum

Fair Use Image[edit]

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)

Podcast of pilot, controllers and maintenance[edit]

Joe d’Eon, who authors the podcast Fly With Me has captured part of the conversation between the pilot, controllers, dispatch and maintenance and put it up as a podcast episode: Fly With Me Episode 8 and a Half. It's notable because it presents the viewpoint of the pilot without interference from the media. user:blalor

Thrust Reversers[edit]

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)

I noticed this too, several months later. You are right; I'll fix the text.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Runway reopening[edit]

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)

Why was the link to AA191 added?[edit]

Am I missing something? this was before TVs were common in jets?

-MarsRover 20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is absolutely inexplicable. The only thing I can imagine is that it is someone who believes in the premonitions that allegedly preceded the crash of AA191, and was arguing that therefore, people technically witnessed their own emergency. Maybe? Either way, it doesn't make sense.
Since two of us were equally baffled, I am removing the link. If somebody wants to re-add it, please justify it here. --Jaysweet 20:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I added this, and I do so again. See the last paragraph of the Crash section of the AA191 page. While this is not definitive, if it deserves inclusion on that page I think it reasonable to include a reference to it here. Discussion/criticism welcome. --Leberquesgue 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: I failed to include an edit summary; apologies. Not knowing how to change this I will leave it be. Also, on reflection, your comment strikes me as unduly disparaging and somewhat offensive. Why not just ask me to justify the link?
Well, that's what we are trying to do but perhaps Jaysweet put a little too much sarcasm in his reply. So, I see what you mean. There's some faint similarities. One was people in the crash watching themselves. The other was people in the airport watching TV of a plane crash. But the way its written you expect AA191 crash passengers to be watching themselves, too. --MarsRover 07:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I misunderstood the paragraph in the AA191 page and thought the "passengers" referred to were those on the plane. On reflection this is unreasonable. I will re-remove the link. Thank you for clarifying things for me.

--Leberquesgue 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the link should be re-added. American Airlines at the time did apparently allow passengers in the plane to watch the pilots from a camera mounted in the cockpit of the aircraft. (Note that the AA191 article mentions closed circuit TV on the aircraft; this was NOT being transmitted to the terminal.) I am reinstating the reference. (And FYA, inflight movies have been around since the 1960's. :P ) 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leberguesgue, sorry for the offensive tone. You're totally 100% right, and I was not assuming good faith in that instance. My sincere apologies.
Regarding the link... I dunno, maybe... Was this CCTV of a ground camera showing the plane, or CCTV of the pilots in the cockpit? If the latter, I don't think that really counts -- I mean, every single person who has ever been involved in an air disaster has witnessed the crash from inside the plane, what would be notable is if they witnessed it from outside the plane.
In either case, I think the link needs slightly more explaining, since at the very most the passengers only might have seen the crash... --Jaysweet 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

odd fact not in article (probably shouldn't be)[edit]

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)

Incident Notability: Two Other Landing Gear Incidents[edit]

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)

more odd trivia[edit]

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

File:Satellite-View-LAX.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Satellite-View-LAX.jpg, 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)

Delete this article?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Here is the brief (the current link in the article is dead): Apparently it is classified by the NTSB as an "incident", not "accident" LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
In that case, I agree! Pburka (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
That definitely sounds like the best way. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not so sure WP:OR will be a problem, although it certainly could be: List of airliner shootdown incidents has Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870, which is so wrong. For a list like List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 we assume that its not original research to use some common sense and assemble the relevant incidents. If there is a common thread for these landing gear incidents which was addressed in safety recommendations, a single article on all of them, including JB292, makes more sense than this stand-alone "news event". In order to make the connections clear, I'd hope that later safety recommendations or other sources reference the specific incidents together, not sure if that is the case. I still think this is a promising way to go, and can be done professionally. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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)