![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 11:35 AM |
About French cowards. | Michael Smith | Military Aviation | 45 | October 22nd 03 03:15 PM |
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French | The Black Monk | Military Aviation | 62 | October 16th 03 08:05 AM |