Todos
← Back to Squawk list
JetBlue 194 - Hydraulic Failure in Vegas
The one thing I thought was interesting is that the Airbus A320 can not dump fuel. Is that becoming the norm for airliners..?? (www.dailymail.co.uk) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
As a current airbus captain I agree with the post that four hours to burn off fuel is ridiculous. With two hydraulic failures you stabilize the aircraft configuration then plan on landing as soon as possible on the longest runway available which in Vegas is 14000. Landing performance is about 11000 so this is not a factor. If winds were a consideration for landing then head to LAX in 45 minutes and land on the 12000' runway.
If a flight has a problem, flight ops and maintenance control are always involved. As a long time heavy jet line mechanic, I have always supported the Captain. He is the person that has to make the call. No one can do that for for him.
The ability to dump fuel is a MUST HAVE!!! What was airbus thinking? That their plane was so safe that they didn't need that important feature?
A318, 319,320, B737 all updates and most other smaller aircraft don't have fuel dump capability according to other posts here. There is a lot of knowledge on this site. Some of them know even more that I do. :-) Read all the comments and I guarantee you'll come away knowing something new. Fuel dumping is frowned on by the EPA and all state Water Resource Administrations. Fuel lightering is for performance with engine out procedures not to lighten the aircraft in other situations.
My question is this: Why are the Airbus built aircraft not designed with the ability to dump fuel? I understand that the landing gear and it's corresponding airframe structure is engineered to withstand tremendous forces, but why risk collapsing the landing gear and skidding off the runway, or setting fire to the brakes due to an overweight landing, thus creating more of an explosion risk in the event of a legit emergency landing? Boeing > Airbus.
None of the smaller ones are, Boeing or Airbus. Go to Google"Aircraft maximum landing weight" and then do Wiki. It gives the whole explanation, but in a nutshell, fuel dumping is primarily for engine loss and performance therafter and is based on a ratio of MTOW and MLW and then it was changed later on based on aircraft performance; has nothing to do with the brand.
Tossing pax around for 4 hours burning excess fuel to meet a landing weight limit is over the top. If it can takeoff with that weight it can damn sure land with it obviously ensuring minimum sink at touchdown. An inspection and sign off is generally all that's required to return the machine to service. Manufacturer must have considered that when the fuel dump plumbing was left off to save weight. Adding this story to those already out there about this carrier won't help their bottom line. Hell in that length of time he could have continued to destination. I'm guessing rookie in the left seat. The FBW system coupled to hydraulic actuators is assumed to have been a contributing factor to the rough ride.