Aviation Week (November 10, 1997, p. 59) says a "preliminary
inspection points to a fastener coming loose on a brake rod, which
possibly impeded the movement of the landing gear as it was trying
to extend."

G-VSKY (an A340-311, name China Girl) was operating VS 024 LAX-LHR
with 98 passengers and 16 crew.  On approach, the left main landing
gear failed to extend.  The center and right mains as well as the
nose gear deployed normally.  Several attempts were made to jar the
gear loose, to no avail.  With fuel running low, the aircraft finally
landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15
minutes of fuel remaining, tipping onto one of its engines (probably
#1) during the rollout.  Nine people (including at least two crew)
were treated for minor injuries received during the evacuation.

It's not uncommon for airliners to land with one or more landing gear
unextended and, except for very old aircraft that were near the end
of their life anyway, they're fixed up and put back in service.  No
reason this one should be different.

--


                |WWW     http://www.***.com/ ~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills

Karl wrote on Sun Nov 16 05:16:17 1997:

All of the news reports I have seen stated that (in addition
to trying to force the gear down with positive g), the pilots
circled for 40 minutes to burn off excess fuel before attempting
the crash landing. (Since the A340 has the capability to dump
fuel, unlike the A320, this puzzled me a bit.)

Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton
Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The A340 does not appear to have been very badly damaged.  It is being
repaied by BA at its LHR East Base.  Number 1 & 2 engines have been
removed and what appears to be a large tripod is supporting the port
wing whilst work on the undercarriage proceeds.

if it was written:

Why?  If you have trouble lowering the gear, surely there is no reason to
rush into an emergency landing while you've still got fuel?  The gods might
smile at you, someone on the ground may come up with an manoevre to shake
the gear down, etc.

Of course, the trick is not to take it too far the other direction, as a
United DC-8 did at Portland many years ago...  (they had gear problems, and
then ran out of fuel, and so crashed short of the runway...)

Malc.

There would be a lot of ATC work involved in sorting out
air traffic - they would have to presumably allow for
closure of both runways.

Dumping fuel takes a while anyway.

The crew might want the time to consult with their airline's
technical staff and also prepare themselves.

Why rush?

There seemed to be a huge delay in getting the runway cleared
afterwards - about 24 hours before the aircraft was finally
moved. The impact on schedules - especially European and
domestic was terrible. I was surprised that the A340 wasn't moved
off the runway and everything cleared up before the next morning.

---------------------
Andrew.

Not all that puzzling really, If they dumped fuel there would have been
an outcry from the uninformed public about the plane pouring fuel all over
their houses or whatever. Burning it instead of dumping it achieves the
same result without feeding a media frenzy.

Trevor Fenn

Don't expect a lot of rationality from airport management. Everybody
and his brother probably wants to investigate to make sure they are
not at fault, and no incriminating evidence is accidentally altered.
Fixing blame and avoid blame is far more important that the disruption
to only 70,000 passengers or so...

a few years ago I was on my way up to Langkawi for the first LIMA
show.  We were delayed leaving KUL for an hour, and then parked at
Penang for another hour.. Turned we were waiting for a Mig-29 to get a
new tire.

The Mig-29 after getting in the days practice had popped a tire on
landing. Just left it in the middle of the runway for 3 hours while
they replaced the tire!!! Only 1 runway (albeit a long one) at
Langkawi.

Such is life these days..

The fuel is vaporized as it leaves the dump tube and by the time it hits
the ground it is spread out over such a vast area that it is virtually
undetectable.

--

Aus des Weltalls Ferne, Funken Radiosterne, Quasare und Pulsare
-Kraftwerk

Which leads me to wonder, do the authorities not have other airports to
"suggest" to the capt to land at rather than close Heathrow, of all
airports.  While I have not explored the availability of crash rescue
services at, for example Stansted, about 30 miles NE of Heathrow, and of
7000 feet runway length or more, if my memory is correct, it seems to me
that there should be a plan to keep UK's premiere airport from being closed
in most potential accidents.  Of course, lives are the number one priority,
but I doubt a business jet with the same problem would have been allowed to
so easily disrupt aviation.

Dave Pullan

I can't say how other countries would handle it but in the U.S., if I'm
flying a plane and declare an emergency, ATC better well just do what I
ask provided there's no technical reason they can't. Now gear extension
problems don't fall in the "distress" (MAYDAY) category of emergency, at
least not until you actually land but there are many distress situations
where you need a suitable runway and you need it right now. I fly light
twins and in those planes, with one engine inoperative, your go-around
capability is zero. Once you put the gear down, the plane is descending.
So if I do lose an engine, I'm going to be wanting to set it down on a
longer runway than I normally need (so I can aim a couple of thousand feet
down the runway and then if I come up short, I'm still landing on runway).
If the nearest suitable runway is a major air carrier airport, that's
where I'm going and we can deal with the aftermath after I'm down safely.

--

   http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/
   Schaumburg, IL, USA
   I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them

        This was discussed on uk.transport.air a few weeks ago.
I think the key point was that the plane used up its fuel
circling LHR in anticipation of a successful gear lowering
(trying to G-force the gear down  or find some other fix)
so that in the end when a diversion to RAF Manston was suggested
the fuel situation already necessatated LHR.

--
-Niels

Yes, Quite correct. As a pilot myself I am aware that any fuel dumped at around
6000 feet or more will not have an impact on the ground below. Try convincing
the public of that fact though.

Trevor Fenn