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
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
"DevilsPGD" wrote in message ... 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. Which is worse, losing an engine on a 747 or losing an hydraulic system on an A320? Does it matter whether you're near to your maintenance base or not? BA had an engine failure on take off from LAX some years ago. After talking to their technical people in London they elected to continue the flight. 3 engines working meant they couldn't fly as high as normal and burned more fuel and, in the end, they had to land at Manchester about 250 miles short of Heathrow. One plausible theory for their actions is that it would have been easier to replace the engine in London than in Los Angeles because that's where their maintenance base is. In the same vein Jet Blue may have wanted to keep the plane at base to facilitate maintenance. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
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. Again, I doubt the pilot had much say in the matter. More likely ground support. 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. Yet JetBlue is consistently rated as one of the best airlines in North America: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42979432.../#.T-Ol5JGuV9U |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
"Graham Harrison" wrote:
"DevilsPGD" wrote: 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. Which is worse, losing an engine on a 747 or losing an hydraulic system on an A320? Does it matter whether you're near to your maintenance base or not? In the case of the JetBlue flight, they lost two out of the three hydraulic systems at one point. That would be far more serious than the loss of an engine on a 747. Once they recovered one of the hydraulic systems, things would be much less exciting. BA had an engine failure on take off from LAX some years ago. After talking to their technical people in London they elected to continue the flight. 3 engines working meant they couldn't fly as high as normal and burned more fuel and, in the end, they had to land at Manchester about 250 miles short of Heathrow. One plausible theory for their actions is that it would have been easier to replace the engine in London than in Los Angeles because that's where their maintenance base is. In the same vein Jet Blue may have wanted to keep the plane at base to facilitate maintenance. The loss of two system would mean an immediate landing at the nearest airport, assuming the pilots were sure the aircraft could be properly controlled. While they were figuring out what was wrong, they were able to restart one of the two systems they lost. At that point, they wouldn't have had enough fuel to make it to the original destination, and prudence would dictate setting down to make sure things were working properly. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
On 6/21/2012 7:02 PM, James Robinson wrote:
Sancho 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. Again, I doubt the pilot had much say in the matter. More likely ground support. 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. Yet JetBlue is consistently rated as one of the best airlines in North America: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42979432.../#.T-Ol5JGuV9U 15,000 readers of Consumers Reports certainly represent a certain segment of the market, one that is definitively not necessarily representative of the much larger airline passenger cohort. The big wow factor was "JetBlue received the highest marks for its in-flight entertainment system. The carrier features seatback TV screens that play a wide range of live programming," which other airlines have been instituting, all following the lead of Virgin from years ago. It is indicative of that market segment that performance and service were not cited. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
On 6/21/2012 5:18 PM, Graham Harrison wrote:
"DevilsPGD" wrote in message ... 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. Which is worse, losing an engine on a 747 or losing an hydraulic system on an A320? Does it matter whether you're near to your maintenance base or not? BA had an engine failure on take off from LAX some years ago. After talking to their technical people in London they elected to continue the flight. 3 engines working meant they couldn't fly as high as normal and burned more fuel and, in the end, they had to land at Manchester about 250 miles short of Heathrow. One plausible theory for their actions is that it would have been easier to replace the engine in London than in Los Angeles because that's where their maintenance base is. In the same vein Jet Blue may have wanted to keep the plane at base to facilitate maintenance. With 12 flights a day, it is far from likely that LVA offers significant maintenance capacity. According to their route map, Long Beach is a major base. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
Sancho Panza wrote:
On 6/21/2012 7:02 PM, James Robinson wrote: Sancho 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. Again, I doubt the pilot had much say in the matter. More likely ground support. 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. Yet JetBlue is consistently rated as one of the best airlines in North America: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42979432...ps/t/southwest -jetblue-top-rated-survey/#.T-Ol5JGuV9U 15,000 readers of Consumers Reports certainly represent a certain segment of the market, one that is definitively not necessarily representative of the much larger airline passenger cohort. The big wow factor was "JetBlue received the highest marks for its in-flight entertainment system. The carrier features seatback TV screens that play a wide range of live programming," which other airlines have been instituting, all following the lead of Virgin from years ago. It is indicative of that market segment that performance and service were not cited. You seem to be the only one with a hate on for JetBlue. JD Power ranked them highest on their surveys for something like 8 years, and Skytrax ranks them highest of all US airlines. The only north American airline that comes close is Canada's Porter. You don't think that things like generous seat pitch, newer aircraft, free baggage check, good on-time performance and good customer service wouldn't have more influence on ranking than on-board entertainment? http://www.airlinequality.com/StarRanking/4star.htm http://airlines.findthebest.com/ http://www.inquisitr.com/253907/jetb...year-in-a-row/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
James Robinson wrote:
You seem to be the only one with a hate on for JetBlue. All airlines do the same thing when they have a plane that is forced to land at an airport where they don't operate from. They treat the pax as cargo and will sit on the tarmac for hours waiting for a takeoff slot. The only thing they have to pay for is landing fees, crew overtime and a fuel truck if they need it. They'll be damned if they pay for gate ops to off-load the pax. That's what these sorts of events are all about. Minimizing costs during irregular ops. And the pax suffers because they have no rights when they're kept on board against their will. Where's our resident US-Air TSA-sycophant retired pilot? He'll tell you that what I'm saying is correct. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
In the last episode of , Fly Guy
said: That's what these sorts of events are all about. Minimizing costs during irregular ops. And the pax suffers because they have no rights when they're kept on board against their will. I'm still waiting for a passenger to call the police and report themselves as kidnapped. Should make for an interesting day. -- So you're a feminist. Isn't that cute. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is It True That A-320 Can't Dump Fuel?
"Sancho Panza" wrote in message ... On 6/21/2012 5:18 PM, Graham Harrison wrote: "DevilsPGD" wrote in message ... 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. Which is worse, losing an engine on a 747 or losing an hydraulic system on an A320? Does it matter whether you're near to your maintenance base or not? BA had an engine failure on take off from LAX some years ago. After talking to their technical people in London they elected to continue the flight. 3 engines working meant they couldn't fly as high as normal and burned more fuel and, in the end, they had to land at Manchester about 250 miles short of Heathrow. One plausible theory for their actions is that it would have been easier to replace the engine in London than in Los Angeles because that's where their maintenance base is. In the same vein Jet Blue may have wanted to keep the plane at base to facilitate maintenance. With 12 flights a day, it is far from likely that LVA offers significant maintenance capacity. According to their route map, Long Beach is a major base. You're right, for some reason I had it in my head they had departed JFK. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fuel Prices Down.... what about Fuel Supplements? | Tom K | Cruises | 9 | September 10th, 2008 11:44 PM |
Belgians dump chip fat down the Toilet | Dagenham Dave | Europe | 18 | May 29th, 2008 10:21 AM |
Why Has This Group Become A Dump For Everything But Cruise Topics?? | Harry Boer | Cruises | 13 | April 9th, 2008 02:36 AM |
So??? is the HORIZON a dump? | Ebbtide | Cruises | 85 | December 20th, 2004 10:36 PM |
So??? is the HORIZON a dump? | Heather | Cruises | 6 | December 20th, 2004 02:28 PM |