Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

In view of the experience of the JetBlue flight that had hydraulic
problems on departing Las Vegas for New York and had to fly around Vegas
for hours to consume fuel before landing at McCarran, is it accurate to
say that the Airbus A-320 can't dump fuel and that F.A.A., among other
authorities, has approved the plane despite that?

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

Sancho Panza wrote:

In view of the experience of the JetBlue flight that had hydraulic
problems on departing Las Vegas for New York and had to fly around Vegas
for hours to consume fuel before landing at McCarran, is it accurate to
say that the Airbus A-320 can't dump fuel and that F.A.A., among other
authorities, has approved the plane despite that?

OMG!!!!! And is it accurate to say the FAA approved the Boeing 737 despite the
fact that it can't dump fuel?

I'm sensing a conspiracy here.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

Sancho Panza wrote:

In view of the experience of the JetBlue flight that had hydraulic
problems on departing Las Vegas for New York and had to fly around Vegas
for hours to consume fuel before landing at McCarran, is it accurate to
say that the Airbus A-320 can't dump fuel and that F.A.A., among other
authorities, has approved the plane despite that?

Why not? The aircraft can land overweight if there is a real emergency.
They just have to be careful about maintaining a low rate of descent when
they land to keep any problems to a minimum. An inspection is required.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

On 6/20/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Neville wrote:
Sancho wrote:

In view of the experience of the JetBlue flight that had hydraulic
problems on departing Las Vegas for New York and had to fly around Vegas
for hours to consume fuel before landing at McCarran, is it accurate to
say that the Airbus A-320 can't dump fuel and that F.A.A., among other
authorities, has approved the plane despite that?

OMG!!!!! And is it accurate to say the FAA approved the Boeing 737 despite the
fact that it can't dump fuel?

I'm sensing a conspiracy here.

JetBlue, under pressure for tarmac delays, seems to be looking for other
places to upset passengers:

JetBlue’s ‘4 hours of hell’

By BILL SANDERSON

Last Updated: 12:21 PM, June 20, 2012

Posted: 2:30 AM, June 20, 2012

ASSOCIATED PRESS

A mechanical failure sent a JetBlue plane like this one careening wildly
through the skies, sparking panic among the 155 people aboard the Las
Vegas to New York flight, passengers told The Post yesterday.

“It was four hours of hell,” said Travis McGhie, who described how the
plane kept lurching from side to side and going into steep turns when
its hydraulic system failed Sunday.

“People were getting sick. Some people were throwing up. There were a
lot of people getting nauseous,” said another passenger, Tom Mizer.

The crew did everything they could to prevent panic. One flight
attendant walked down the aisle saying: “Look at me — I’m smiling. If I
was scared, you would know it. If I’m not scared, you don’t need to be,”
Mizer said.

There was no screaming, but “there were definitely people reacting out
loud,” said McGhie.

Mizer and McGhie, both Brooklyn residents, realized something was wrong
as soon as the full Airbus lifted off from the Vegas airport.

“You could hear a screeching — an obvious mechanical screeching,” said
Mizer. “We were bouncing around a lot.”

One of the pilots declared an emergency and radioed Las Vegas
controllers that they were dealing with “quite a few things, but the
initial thing is . . . we’ve lost two hydraulic systems.”

The plane was loaded with five hours’ worth of fuel. Because the A320 is
incapable of dumping excess fuel, the pilots circled the area south of
the Vegas Strip until they’d burned enough to allow the crippled plane
to land safely.

“People on board got a little freaked. People were upset. Nobody was
crazy, but everyone was upset.

“It became a long, sort of very tense waiting game,” Mizer said.

McGhie added, “The plane kind of felt out of control. It wasn’t able to
balance itself, and the air was choppy,” said McGhie.

The side-to-side weaving was likely a sign that the pilots had lost
lateral control, said Dave Esser, a professor at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University in Florida.

An Airbus manual describes a double hydraulic failure as “improbable in
operation.”

Esser said an Airbus has enough backup systems that the passengers were
not in serious danger. “Even if everything failed, there would have been
a way to manually land the aircraft,” he said.

JetBlue confirmed the incident. The FAA is investigating.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

In the last episode of , Sancho Panza
said:

In view of the experience of the JetBlue flight that had hydraulic
problems on departing Las Vegas for New York and had to fly around Vegas
for hours to consume fuel before landing at McCarran, is it accurate to
say that the Airbus A-320 can't dump fuel and that F.A.A., among other
authorities, has approved the plane despite that?

A more interesting question, from a total layman, is this: If they were
willing to fly around in circles for hours, why not fly people to their
destination for hours instead?

Depending on the type of malfunction, I can see them not wanting to be
particularly far from a runway and perhaps this was that type of
situation, but at least from my point of view, if an aircraft isn't
airworthy enough to make a flight, it should be on the ground as soon as
is reasonably possible.

--
Some mistakes are too fun to make only once.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

On 6/21/2012 2:25 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode , Sancho Panza
said:

In view of the experience of the JetBlue flight that had hydraulic
problems on departing Las Vegas for New York and had to fly around Vegas
for hours to consume fuel before landing at McCarran, is it accurate to
say that the Airbus A-320 can't dump fuel and that F.A.A., among other
authorities, has approved the plane despite that?

A more interesting question, from a total layman, is this: If they were
willing to fly around in circles for hours, why not fly people to their
destination for hours instead?

Depending on the type of malfunction, I can see them not wanting to be
particularly far from a runway and perhaps this was that type of
situation, but at least from my point of view, if an aircraft isn't
airworthy enough to make a flight, it should be on the ground as soon as
is reasonably possible.

That is analogous to the question surrounding the event that got JetBlue
its most publicity--sitting on the tarmac for seven hours when they
might have parked at a gate and discharged the passengers.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

DevilsPGD wrote:

A more interesting question, from a total layman, is this: If they
were willing to fly around in circles for hours, why not fly people to
their destination for hours instead?

They were sorting out a failure of the hydraulic systems which affected the
flight controls. They didn't want to venture too far from an airport, in
case they had to land in a hurry, but also didn't want to try landing until
they figured out what was wrong so they wouldn't upset things when they
added flaps and lowered the landing gear. In essence, they wanted to keep
things simple until they sorted out what was wrong.

Depending on the type of malfunction, I can see them not wanting to be
particularly far from a runway and perhaps this was that type of
situation, but at least from my point of view, if an aircraft isn't
airworthy enough to make a flight, it should be on the ground as soon
as is reasonably possible.

If they thought there was a major problem that couldn't wait, they would
have landed. As it was, they fixed some of the problems, and felt they
didn't need to land urgently, but by then couldn't make to their
destination, so it was easiest to burn off fuel and land where they
started.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

Sancho Panza wrote:

Sancho Panza said:

That is analogous to the question surrounding the event that got
JetBlue its most publicity--sitting on the tarmac for seven hours when
they might have parked at a gate and discharged the passengers.

Not really, since the times JetBlue has stranded passengers at JFK and
Bradley, it wasn't the pilot's choice, but from the lack of support on the
ground. In this case, it was entirely up to the pilot do decide what action
he to take.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, James Robinson wrote:
Sancho wrote:

Sancho said:

That is analogous to the question surrounding the event that got
JetBlue its most publicity--sitting on the tarmac for seven hours when
they might have parked at a gate and discharged the passengers.

Not really, since the times JetBlue has stranded passengers at JFK and
Bradley, it wasn't the pilot's choice, but from the lack of support on the
ground. In this case, it was entirely up to the pilot do decide what action
he to take.

That has been strongly denied by the Port Authority. It is preposterous
for anyone to think that no available gate was available at JFK for
seven hours from the scores the airport has. It is part of an
anti-passenger attitude that the airline exhibits all too frequently.

Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
 

On 6/21/2012 4:30 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, James Robinson wrote:
Sancho wrote:

Sancho said:

That is analogous to the question surrounding the event that got
JetBlue its most publicity--sitting on the tarmac for seven hours when
they might have parked at a gate and discharged the passengers.

Not really, since the times JetBlue has stranded passengers at JFK and
Bradley, it wasn't the pilot's choice, but from the lack of support on
the
ground. In this case, it was entirely up to the pilot do decide what
action
he to take.

That has been strongly denied by the Port Authority. It is preposterous
for anyone to think that no available gate was available at JFK for
seven hours from the scores the airport has. It is part of an
anti-passenger attitude that the airline exhibits all too frequently.

Even the pilots dump on the airline:

Updated: 6:39 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011 | Posted: 6:38 a.m. Tuesday,
Nov. 1, 2011
Even pilot blames JetBlue for 7 hours of tarmac time
By Michael Muskal
Los Angeles Times

A JetBlue flight, stranded for hours by the weekend's miserable weather
in the Northeast, prompted the flight's pilot to complain -- via now
widely available audio -- that he was getting more help from airport
officials than from his own company.

A spokeswoman for Jet Blue wouldn't comment Monday about the pilot's
complaints but defended the airline's actions in dealing "with this
confluence of events" caused by the weather. She said all of the
passengers will receive a full refund for their round-trip fares.

Flight 504 left Saturday morning from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., bound for
Newark, N.J., but snowy weather forced the flight to be diverted to
Bradley International Airport near Hartford, Conn. It landed there in
the early afternoon -- and then was forced to wait more than seven hours
on the tarmac.

Other flights spent more than their fair share of time on the tarmac at
the Bradley International over the weekend, but it was Flight 504 that
garnered the most media attention.

"I got a problem here on the airplane. I'm going to need to have the
cops onboard," a flight crew member told the tower in a conversation
posted on LiveATC.net, a website that monitors air traffic control
conversations. "I need some air stairs brought over here and the cops
brought onboard the airplane."

The pilot later told the tower: "Look, you know, we can't seem to get
any help from our own company. ... I apologize for this, but if there is
any way you can get a tug and a tow bar out here to us and get us towed
somewhere to a gate or something. I don't care, take us anywhere."

As the flight waited, the pilot took the time to thank the airport.

"Listen, I just want to put in my two cents worth in for whatever its
worth. Thank you very much," he said, according to news reports based on
LiveATC.net. "It's Capt. Thompson over here on (Flight) 504 ... I think
we've got more help from you guys than our own people."

The passengers were able to leave around 9 p.m. JetBlue blamed the
problems on the large number of flights that had to be diverted because
of the weather.

"Due to a confluence of events, including infrastructure issues in New
York/JFK and Newark, JetBlue diverted 17 flights on Saturday. Six of
those flights diverted to Hartford," the airline said in its e-mailed
statement. "We worked with the airport to secure services, including
remote deplaning and lav servicing. Obviously, we would have preferred
deplaning much sooner than we did, but our flights were six of the 23
reported diversions into Hartford, including international flights. The
airport experienced intermittent power outages, which made refueling and
jetbridge deplaning difficult."

JetBlue also apologized to the passengers.

"We have communicated directly with our customers impacted by this
confluence of events to apologize as well as provide a full round trip
refund, as it remains JetBlue's responsibly to not simply provide safe
and secure travel, but a comfortable experience as well," the company
stated. --
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ne...rmac-ti/nLzKS/