Why can't the French dump fuel?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full
load of fuel.

Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want
to burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I
can dump fuel even in my Mooney.

As others have said, they first consulted with their dispatch and
maintenance, which took time. The original intent was to land in Long
Beach, but when they found the gear rotated, they changed to LAX. That
took more time. LAX was picked because of the longer runways, and better
emergency services.

Once they decided to head toward LAX, they had already burned a fair
amount of fuel. Any additional time flying around helped:

- Lower landing speed
- Less impact force when the nose gear dropped
- Shorter stopping distance once on ground

As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:
Something else to fix, something else to go wrong, plus it adds
unproductive weight.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

The news
reports was that they were burning off fuel. That seems more logical
than simply taking 3 hours to decide the gear wasn't going to fix
itself.

I am surprised that you, a pilot yourself, place so much faith in the news
report of this incident.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

The last link provided by Kev has the likely answer:
"The primary reason to burn off the extra fuel was that a heavier plane
has a faster landing speed. Since a slower airspeed on landing was the
objective in this case, the course of action was to lighten the load by
burning off some fuel and when landing, lower the nose gear at as slow
an airspeed as possible."

Joe,
You sound like an EXCELLENT advocate for having the ability to dump
fuel too!!!

-Robert

As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:

Of course, everything is a cost driver. Whether or not to have carpet
is a cost decision. The real question is what the benefit side looked
like in their cost/benefit talks.

-Robert

It's labeled "Dump" down to a 3000# minimum on NWA 320's. See above.
Enviro in this case perhaps.

Have a great one!

Bush

On 27 Sep 2005 13:29:55 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
What factors would go into such a design compromise?
-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.

Because it has no need to.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

This also sounds like an EXCELLENT argument for the ability to
dump fuel.

Maybe to you, but it's not.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Put another way, why provide a way to dump fuel when you can just run it
through the engines.

They didn't need to lose weight that fast, they didn't need to land 'right
now'. The fact that they flew around in circles for three hours was probably
a good thing, time to examine every possibility and double check everything
before landing.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:

Of course, everything is a cost driver. Whether or not to have carpet
is a cost decision. The real question is what the benefit side looked
like in their cost/benefit talks.

-Robert

The FAA certification requirement for a fuel dump system is a takeoff
weight that is greater than 135% (I think) of the max landing weight.
They don't add the complexity and cost of a dump system unless it is
required for certification.

The 707-123 I flew had a empty weight of 120,000 lbs, max TO weight of
256,000 lbs, 112,000 lbs of fuel, a max landing weight of 190,000
pounds,(135%) had a dump system. A 757-200 at 256,000 lbs carries
83,000 lbs of fuel, max landing weight of 198,000 lbs (130%) does not.
BTW the 757 with 29,000 lbs less fuel has the same range as a 707-100
with the same passenger load.

The 707 system has standpipes that let you dump only to get you down
to max landing weight, leaving in our case about 70,000 lbs of fuel.
That being said, I'd have flown around several hours after dumping, if
there was no immediate emergency , to get as light and non-flamable as
possible before landing. Their gear problem was not an emergency and
I doubt the crew declaired one even though they asked for the
equipment. Emergencies require immediate action. (think fire) BTW a
single engine failure is not classified as an emergency either. The
aircraft is certified to climb at max takeoff weight on a single
engine.

I'm sure the airlines, EPA, and everyone else would rather the fuel be
burnt as normal rather than dumped into the air and sea. In an
emergency, planes that don't have a dump system will do an overweight
landing and and have to do an overweight landing inspection prior to
next flight. Given the choice, it's better to burn it down than do
the inspection.

"Mike W." wrote in message
...
The fact that they flew around in circles for three hours was probably
a good thing, time to examine every possibility and double check
everything
before landing.

(OT!) I thought they just flew around for a 3 hour tour as a tribute to a
late actor...