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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
|
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 |