A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 21st, 2012, 10:18 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Graham Harrison[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 288
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 12:02 AM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 12:07 AM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 12:15 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 12:24 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 01:03 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 10:07 AM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 02:33 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 11:30 PM posted to rec.travel.air
DevilsPGD[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default 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  
Old June 22nd, 2012, 11:44 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Graham Harrison[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 288
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:36 PM
So??? is the HORIZON a dump? Heather Cruises 6 December 20th, 2004 03:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.