A319
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Workload; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
I was the PIC/pilot not flying. On the landing rollout at approximately 75 KTS ground speed we lost nosewheel steering causing us to be disabled on Runway 25L. I set the parking brake and notified Tower of our situation; and then ran the comp reset procedure. We were able to recover our nosewheel steering and taxi clear of Runway 25L; but not before causing two other aircraft to execute missed approaches. I then notified Maintenance Control and Company Operations of our situation. I was able to taxi to the ramp area; but requested to be towed into the gate as a precaution. Maintenance met the aircraft and began to troubleshoot the problem. They identified the problem and cleaned a sensor per Airbus procedures I was told. The aircraft was signed off and returned to service. We pushed after about a 45 minute delay for the continuation of flight. On taxi out to Runway 25R during engine two start we lost the nosewheel steering for a second time and became disabled on the taxiway. I ran the comp reset procedure again and notified all persons involved previously that a gate return was in progress. Once again I requested to be towed into the gate at which time the passengers were deplaned. At this time myself and the First Officer were notified that we were being removed from the duration of our planned flight because of duty time concerns. I was informed that the flight eventually departed late and completed the segment without any further problems. The loss of steering on the landing rollout was a strong pull to the left requiring differential braking to keep the aircraft from departing the runway. The loss of steering on taxiway was much more benign and required normal braking. I am not sure what could be done to prevent maintenance items from occurring. There did seem to be some disconnect between the different maintenance crews on the proper way to complete the maintenance procedure done in the previous departure station. Also I was concerned when the maintenance guys in where this last failure occurred told me that if they can't duplicate the failure at the gate all they could do was clean the part and sign off as op check good. I'm just glad that the loss of nosewheel steering the second time was not during the takeoff roll at a critical speed. Mechanical failures are going to occur and I think the maintenance guys did the best they could with what they were presented with.
An A319 nosewheel steering failed during the landing roll but was recovered after following the QRH which allowed the crew to taxi to the gate. Following maintenance the aircraft taxied for takeoff only to have the steering fail again which required a tow.