This was information I did not have. The newscast I saw did not say anything about the gear not being able to retract. I still stand by my original, albiet slightly modified,posting: IF (repeat - IF) the flight had been able proceed to JFK, I don't think it would have for some <fill in your favorite expletive) lawyer would have sued JetBlue, God, and everyone else. David R -------------- Original message -------------- > David, > Who died and declared you aviation expert? > > The reason that airplane didn't continue to JFK is because it couldn't go to > JFK. Period. You have one of the gears dangling down. > - The aircraft couldn't exceed the VLE speed. With the gear extended you > cannot climb as fast and gain altitude. There is a potential of not being > able to make it to flight levels. > - You burn much more fuel at those low altitudes and the fuel they loaded in > BUR is not going to be enough to get you to JFK. > - The cockpit crew didn't know exactly what was wrong with the nose gear > until they did a low pass. Even then the situation is a big unknown. > - If you decide to go to JFK you may reach speeds that may risk losing the > nose gear and hit the fuselage or get sucked in to one of the engines. > - UAL has mx facility at LAX that this can be looked, repaired and sent back > home again. > > These are the many things that cause the B6 crew to make it back to LAX. > > Baha Acuner > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David > MR > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:13 PM > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: jet Blue incident > > Did you interview the pilots to determine that they didn't continue with the > flight so they could "have a controlled situation in which to land..."? > > JFK is JetBlue's main base where they do maintenance. Unless the gear would > not retract - which the news casts I've seen haven't mentioned - the > aircraft could have made it to JFK. > > What do you call a lawyer in a firm that specializes in aviation that sues > an airline before the facts of the incident/accident are in? What do you > call a lawyer in a firm that specializes in aviation that sues an aircraft > manufacturer because its plane was not maintained properly (in other words, > there was no defect in the airplane cause by the manufacturer. > > Did you know that a large part of the cost of purchasing is due to > suit-happy lawyers? At one time, 70 (seventy!) percent of the cost of a > Cessna light aircraft was due to possible liability caused by lawyers. > > From my view here on my high horse, I still say one of the reasons that the > aircraft went to LAX was due to lawyers. > > Alireza, based on your previous e-mails and this one I should have known > that you were pursuing a career in an industry that is rated very high on > the list of professions that most people hate. > > David R > http://home.comcast.net/~damiross/books.html > www.sequoians.com > www.chanticleers.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > Alireza Alivandivafa > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 21:59 > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: jet Blue incident > > > Oh come on David, isn't this getting tired? I mean, I take this as a > personal insult. B6 wont get sued (though, if this is the result of their > contracted > MX, B6 might sue). Also, there are whole firms that specialize in aviation > law, so that "craphead" would know something on the subject even if someone > decided to sue. Finally, the reason they didn't continue is because they > wanted > to have a controlled situation in which to land, as opposed to be forced > into > an emergency somewhere for some other reason AND had to deal with the gear. > Imagine that a flap went bad and they had to land at flaps 15 instead of 30 > (I > am using 737 numbers, but you get the point)? That would have meant a > faster > than normal, not a slower than normal landing, and ending up off a runway > somewhere. Get off your cynical high horse and just be happy that the two > remarkable ladies on the flight deck landed that plane the way they did > > In a message dated 9/22/2005 12:37:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > Lawyers. If the pax found out about the gear before landing at JFK, some > crap head of a lawyer who knows nothing about aviation would have sued. > Come to think of it, JetBlue will probably be sued anyways