Why can't the French dump fuel?

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.

-Robert

Dumping or burning off fuel was the least of the pilot's worries. There
was no emergency in the sense that the plane had to land immediately.
The pilot took his time consulting with experts on the ground. Jet Blue
doesn't serve LAX. They fly out of Long Beach so where to land was part
of the consultation.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

-Robert

Jet Blue doesn't serve LAX.

Jet Blue claimed they have a major maint. hanger at LAX. More likey it
is a contract maint shop that does their major maint.

There was no emergency in the sense that the plane had to land immediately

They flew in circles for 3 hours. You certainly can't believe they
thought they had a chance to get it down for that entire time. 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. This also sounds like an EXCELLENT argument for the ability to
dump fuel.

-Robert

"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 =----

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.

Controllability on the ground was unknown so they went for lower
landing weight to get shorter stopping distance.

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.

-Robert

Yossarian:
so they went for lower landing weight to get shorter stopping distance.

And to reduce the size of any potential fireball afterwards.

In article .com,
"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.

I would think landing at a minimum weight would help reduce the
probability of nose gear failure. Also, 3 hours of fuel burned in
the air is far better than burning on the ground, if you know what
I mean. With respect to flying around for 3 hour... well... they could.
There was no need to land immediately.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message

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.

The prime objective of the three-hour fly-around was not to burn off fuel.
The time was used consulting with engineering to make sure all alternatives
and technical sources had been considered before committing to a compromised
landing. Having said that, burning off the fuel didn't hurt. While a
reduced landing weight wasn't technically required, it was still more
desirable than a heavier landing weight in the instance.

"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.