Maintenance Briefing Notes
$76.000 paid for a safety pin...
Introduction
Landing gear non-retractions during the take-off phase are one main reason for flight
interruptions. In many cases, they were caused by Landing Gear ground lock pins,
commonly also called safety devices, or safety pins, which were still installed on the
landing gear prior the take-off.
In this Maintenance Briefing Note, one operator report was selected as an example,
providing also interesting in-sight information of the failure scenario, and the costs caused
by a simple forgotten safety pin.
Maintenance Briefing Notes, Page 1
What happened
The following report was sent by one of our Airbus A340 operators:
“ ... one of our A340’s suffered an IFTB (In-Flight Turn Back) because of the centre gear
was unable to retract. After the landing, maintenance personnel found the centre gear pin
of the aircraft not removed! 157,000 lb of fuel has been dumped, and costing around
$76,000...”
Why did it happen
The reporting operator has a process in place where the ramp service personnel removes the
gear pins from all landing gears, and put them under the air-bridge. Then, the operator
mechanics have to count the gear pins, and put them all into the storage box in the cockpit.
This process ensures that different individuals do a double check.
The storage box is equipped with two small holes, and two bigger holes.
The small holes are provided for the nose gear pin, and the centre landing gear pin, and the
bigger holes for the two main gear pins.
Picture: landing gear pin storage box
Maintenance Briefing Notes, Page 2
All precautions were in place to ensure that all landing pins are removed prior to take-off:
different individuals doing the job, a double check, and a visual indication that if one of the
holes in the storage box is still left open, then the corresponding safety pin might be still
installed on the landing gear.
However, according to the operator report, what happened in this case was the following
scenario:
• The ramp service personnel forgot to remove the centre gear pin.
• The airline mechanic was used to working on the Airbus A330 (no centre landing
gear), and it was the first time for him to work on the A340.
• The airline mechanic did check the gear pin numbers placed under the air-bridge,
but he did not notice that the A340 has a centre landing gear.
• He put the nose gear pin, and the two main landing gear pins in the corresponding
holes of the storage box. He saw that there was one small hole left open, but he
was used to seeing the same on the A330 (same storage box for both aircraft
types), and consequently it was nothing abnormal for him.
• The flight crew did not detect the still installed centre gear pin during the walk
around check.
• The flight crew did not notice the empty hole in the storage box during the cockpit
equipment check.
Maintenance Briefing Notes, Page 3
Conclusion
In this particular case, several defences designed to avoid that a landing gear pin is left on
the aircraft, all failed at one point in time for different reasons.
Further to this incident, the concerned operator launched a local modification to the storage
box installed in the A330, by blocking one of the small holes, so that the storage box is
physically different to the one in the A340.
Further references:
The NLG/CLG ground safety pin flag length was increased to improve visibility, and is
offered by Messier-Dowty Vendor SB A34/56-32-045, issued 19 April, 2004.
Additional information on this subject is provided with:
FAST special, edition May 2005, “A320 Family – A practical guide to reducing in-flight
interruptions”, chapter ATA 32, Landing Gear Systems.
Maintenance Briefing Notes, Page 4
We appreciate receiving feedback to this issue of the Maintenance Briefing Notes.
Uwe Eggerling
Mailto:
[email protected]This Maintenance Briefing Note (MBN) is part of a set of Briefing Notes that provide an overview of the applicable standards, techniques, best practices,
human factors, suggested company prevention strategies and personal lines‐of‐defense related to major threats and hazards that may affect maintenance.
This MBN is intended to enhance the reader's safety awareness but it shall not supersede the applicable regulations and the Airbus or airline's maintenance
documentation; should any deviation appear between this MBN and the Airbus or airline’s maintenance documentation, the latter shall prevail at all times.
In the interest of aviation safety, this MBN may be reproduced in whole or in part ‐ in all media ‐ or translated; any use of this MBN shall not modify its
contents or alter an excerpt from its original context. Any commercial use is strictly excluded. All uses shall credit Airbus.
Airbus shall have no liability or responsibility for the use of this MBN, the correctness of the duplication, adaptation or translation and for the updating and
revision of any duplicated version.
Airbus Customer Services
Maintenance Engineering Services
1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte ‐ 31707 BLAGNAC CEDEX FRANCE
Maintenance Briefing Notes, Page 5
