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.

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

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

"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...

"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.

Why is dumping fuel needed? It can still climb at engine out with full
fuel, no need to dump there. If they can get up, and stay up, no need to
dump; they are safe.

What in this case? Were they in danger, flying around? No? Why dump,
then? Could they have landed immediately, in a case of immediate danger?
Absolutely. Still, you are asking. Why would they need to dump? They were
in no danger.
--
Jim in NC

("Morgans" wrote)
What in this case? Were they in danger, flying around? No? Why dump,
then? Could they have landed immediately, in a case of immediate danger?
Absolutely. Still, you are asking. Why would they need to dump? They
were
in no danger.


Then why not fly on to London, er...NY?

I wonder how far they would have gotten at half speed ...Iowa?


Montblack