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?

If an A-320 can't dump fuel, it's because the plane's landing gear *CAN*
handle a landing when it's fully fueled.

The landing gear of the really big planes (A-330, 747, etc) aren't
strong enough to take a fully-fueled landing without expecting some
dammage (remember - the big planes can fly for upwards of 12 - 14 hours
on a full tank).

I think it's a crock of **** that a plane that was so badly handicapped
(from a control POV) was allowed (or FORCED) to fly in circles for 4
hours *JUST TO BURN OFF FUEL THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO LAND WITH*.

There's no telling that a bad situation doesn't or can't get worse
really fast, unpredictably. The first rule is that you should always
try to bring the bird down WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

****ing around in the air just to burn fuel for a plane that can handle
a fully-loaded landing is an extreme crock-of-**** and someone's head
should roll over this.

Where's our resident retired US-Air TSA-appologist pilot?

DV-8?

Why doesn't he chime in and give his 2 cents.