Southwest nose gear collapse

Boeing airplanes have forward retraction up into the wheel well. The actuator works the oleo strut on a lug above and fastened to the trunnion to activate retraction and extension. In case of hydraulic failure, the up lock can be released and the gear will free fall, and hopefully lock aided by the drag forces of the airflow. In this case it sounds like the down lock did not engage and the gear retracted from the weight of the airplane. Folks, this isn't a Boeing airplane anymore , it is a Sky West airplane and they are maintaining it.

 

The other plane (sideways extension) was an Airbus.

The nose gear is fairly short on the 737, not a long strut.

 

I think that the Airbus incident was caused by a broken torque link that allowed the nose wheel axle to turn 90 deg. to the centerline. Their nose gear goes forward, too, in retraction.

 

Bob- She was a Southwest flight, confirmed by images on TV. SkyWest flies mostly CRJs.

 

Thanks, Taz. I had a slip of the brain and a name slipped out that was incorrect. Old folks do that occasionally. I knew that it was Skysouthwest.

 

I get the impression that the passengers had no warning of a nose-gear issue, which would imply that the pilots did not, either. One of the passengers reported that their departure had been delayed due to a "tire issue". Could a blown tire actually cause a gear collapse? 737s have not had problems with nose gears, to my knowledge.

 

The SWA pilot is said to have reported possible nose gear problems before the collapse upon landing according to this article:

Crews scramble to remove damaged jet after hard landing at LaGuardia - U.S. News

 

Looking at the photos and a fuzzy video there is no damage aft of the nose gear that would indicate that it " fell off' or was ripped off. It looks to me that the nose gear never extended. I don't see how the gear could collapse forward when it is on the ground and rolling at 100MPH +.

 

Yes....

Not the B-29/50, though; one of the things I like about that plane is that it looks as good on the ground as it does in the sky... aesthetically... in my opinion.

Part of the look is the nose wheel right out there under the front of the nose... an aggressive look, I think.

The Connie does too, another of my favorites (plus it's unique fuselege).

Sorry about the detour a bit off topic.

 

Correct, TCar. I should have quantified my statement to say" jet transports". The B-29 is a pretty airplane and the result of a strenuous and successful exercise in drag reduction to make up for the lack of horsepower.

 

The Russkies sure thought so... (TU-4)... ha

 

So, I guess the big question is - did he have three green lights or NOT?

 

That's what I was wondering. I just can't see how that nose gear collapsed forward, unless it was only partially down and was still unlocked.

 

Well, I remember a Boeing - (was it a 737?) which was under-fueled in Canada due to confusion over metric/English measurements. It flamed out and had to be (very skillfully) dead sticked into a little-used mountain runway. (a sports car race was going on there at the time). They had to do a manual gear down - no engine power.

The nose gear collapsed and the reason given was that the aerodynamic force was not enough to lock it in position at the glide speed the pilot used.

So, that one did collapse forward, I guess. The aircraft was repairable and flew again.

But, as Bob says - it was only partially down and not locked. If that was the case with the southwest plane, I can hardly see how he had three green indicators.

It is still murky whether he knew the nose gear was not down and locked.

 

It was a 767 in that incident and I was thinking back when I learned that drag forces would indeed lock the gear drag strut but that , I guess, alluded to normal flight speeds. The B-29/B-50 main gear was actuated by a Saginaw endless ball bearing screw and retracted forward. A free fall coupled with high drag force would run the gear back and engage the lock. If it didn't, the locks could be manually cranked into place. Not so with the B-29/B-50 nose gear.

 

Back to the thread. I saw a video taken from the ground that shows a loose wheel rolling along at some distance from the airplane and parallel to it. " Tire problems before take off and working on the wheel...."

 

Yes, rumors are starting to surface that the Southwest plane had a nosewheel issue at TAKEOFF before the collapsed landing.

 

Well, I guess that I will shut up and stay tuned.

 

Looks like the nose gear made it all they way into the avionics bay.

NTSB: Nose gear penetrated Southwest 737 electronics bay

 

Would that info be sent to the crew after take-off?

So, maybe the crew knew that there would be an issue on landing?

Didn't sound as though the passengers knew... no announcement to brace for landing, it seemed.

 

Just saw photos of the electronics equipment bay of the Southwest 737 with the nose gear jammed up in it backwards with the left axle missing and the right wheel missing. Got to be a hard landing, maybe. No wonder there is no readily visible damage aft of the wheel well, the strut went back and up into the fuselage.

 

The passengers I saw interviewed all said it was a very hard landing.

 

In my many flights with Southwest I've noticed two things:

1.) They're quick to take off (applying hard throttle before even completing the taxi turn onto the runway).
2.) Their landings are fast and they are rough (great choice of words I know). One landing into Kansas City in particular I noticed we didn't taxi off the runway until the end and it wasn't by choice. The plane landed pretty far down the runway and I've never experienced that much reverse thrust and braking in my life. I was a bit worried that we were going off.

After 6 or 7 flights IN A ROW (Midway, Orlando, Denver) of experiencing rough takeoffs and landings over the past 2-3 years I stopped flying them. I always joke with people and tell them that Southwest doesn't land their planes, they crash them.

I would not be surprised if this ended up being a hard landing that caused it.

 

it's starting to appear the plane was flown into the ground wheelbarrow style... someone forgot to flare and get the mains to touch first allowing them take the load of the plane...
it's not going to be any part failure from normal use or any maintenance issue... it will be pilot error / screw up....