JetBlue’s ‘4 Hours of Hell’(Kept Flying Because It Couldn't Dump Fuel:R Airbus Designers Depraved?

New York Post ^ | June 20, 2012 | Bill Sanderson

[lbryce]

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.

[lbryce]

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.

In emergency situations such as this, especially on take-off with the plane filled with fuel the first thing that pilots are taught to do is to dump as much fuel as possible, first, to have the plane as maneuverable, light as possible making it easier to control, land and secondly less fuel means less chance of an explosion during the impact of an out of control attempt to land.

So, under circumstances where people's lives are very much at stake, I couldn't fathom why where the dumping of fuel can make the difference between life and death for countless of passengers, the hydraulics having failed, why is the Airbus A320 forced to fly hours on end to burn as much fuel as possible instead of being able to dump fuel to land as quickly safely as possible?

And then it finally occurred to me that that the reason the Airbus 320, perhaps the entire Airbus family of aircraft are unable to dump fuel was because the bureaucrats at Airbus are more concerned about creating an environmental hazard of dumping fuel then the safety of the passengers, with having the passengers brought back safe and sound as quickly as possible. If my thinking is correct, you've got to wonder as to the sort of depraved designers, engineers who work at Airbus.

[Paved Paradise]

Gee, this is pretty scary. One has to wonder about that. Absolutely right about the dumping fuel. Meanwhile, I probably would have been bumming out just from all the people hurling everywhere. Yeccch.

[MeganC]

Don’t blame the engineers, blame the bureacrats in Brussels who dictated the specifications.

[moovova]

“Travis McGhie”?

I’ve read all of his books... ;~)

[ltc8k6]

Many airliners cannot dump fuel. Including many Boeing models.

This story is really nothing but hype, and I am a diehard Boeing fan.

In reality, only one of the hydraulic systems actually failed.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/fueldump.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/daa4c54debeb6dca86256f3400626ab0/cde1b43d9bb02cd386256c8d005bcaf0!OpenDocument

[Don W]

If the plane can’t dump fuel and has to remain in the sky anyway, why didn’t they just continue the flight and thereby minimize the inconvenience to the passengers?

Really: you’re going to be in the air all that time, might as well get where you’re going!

[onedoug]

No fuel dumping capability? A-320 ping....

[SamAdams76]

I like taking The Jet Blue to Las Vegas. I usually take the 777 flight to Las Vegas out of Boston and then the 778 flight heading back. I think this flight number brings me good luck on the strip.

The Jet Blue is actually my favorite airline - they have those video monitors on the back of every seat and there is plenty of legroom. I usually get a couple of Heinekens while on board.

Very good airline, The Jet Blue, highly recommended.

[End Times Sentinel]

In emergency situations such as this, especially on take-off with the plane filled with fuel the first thing that pilots are taught to do is to dump as much fuel as possible

Just out of curiosity, where would a pilot look to do this (obviously not over a densely populated area) body of water/grassland/forest? Any idea what the ramifications to that area are? Is the fuel just left to evaporate or does an organized clean up need to occur?

[ltc8k6]

http://avherald.com/h?article=45165c68&opt=0

A more rational report.

[rockinqsranch]

“......If my thinking is correct, you’ve got to wonder as to the sort of depraved designers, engineers who work at Airbus.”

I’d believe the guilty party would not be the designers/engineers, but the depraved idiocy of the Leftist Politicos of the European Union who would have put out the rules the designers/engineers would have to work from.

[ltc8k6]

It evaporates pretty rapidly.

The fuel jettison system tends to vaporize the fuel.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/5/7/1457755.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/9/7/1386791.jpg

[I see my hands]

Shortly after take off on a flight from LIH - PHX, on an Airbus 320, the pilot announced that there was a problem with the flaps and we'd have to return to LIH. He returned to the airport and landed ~20 minutes after the announcement. I never understood that. Hate those planes anyway.

[FreeAtlanta]

1). it is air BUS. Of course they are depraved.

2). Do you think the restriction on fuel dumping was because of the insane environmental movement? It wouldn't be the first very dangerous/deadly policy they forced.

[ltc8k6]

They cannot continue the flight with the loss of one of the hydraulic systems.

If you have a dire emergency, you just land overweight. Landing overweight is permissible and requires extra maintenance and checks.

If it’s a minor emergency, you take your time and burn the fuel off. You fly low and dirty to increase fuel usage.

If your plane has the fuel dump system, then you can dump the fuel.

If the emergency is extreme, and you must get down now, even fuel dumping will take too long, so you begin dumping fuel as you prepare to land, and you dump fuel all the way down until the last moment.

[lbryce]

In the report linked to in post #10 it states that two hydraulic systems failed

[Ancesthntr]

Someone had to ping you on this....

[5thGenTexan]

Airbus is the EU model implemented in a corporation. It is the EU’s shining example of the success of their cooperation.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Don’t blame the engineers, blame the bureacrats in Brussels who dictated the specifications.”

Airbus is owned lock, stock and barrel by the bureacrats. It is time to send them a message...do not fly on an Airbus...PERIOD! I made that choice some time ago...I will not fly on an Airbus. Any Airbus.

Give me a 747 any time for a long trip...totally dependable. I was on one once, a British Airways flight from Los Angeles to London, and over Las Vegas an engine problem occurred that meant the No 3 engine had to be shut down. We flew on to JFK, flying safely at 24,000 ft to burn more fuel, and we landed safely. The engine was changed out and we continued on to London the next morning. I did not sense any fear on the part of passengers on that flight, partly because the Captain was jovial and kept the passengers informed about the problem/solution.

[ace2u_in_MD]

{I}If the plane can’t dump fuel and has to remain in the sky anyway, why didn’t they just continue the flight and thereby minimize the inconvenience to the passengers?

Really: you’re going to be in the air all that time, might as well get where you’re going!{I}

Really? You are advocating departing the proximity of an airport, with rescue and firefighting equipment after you have had a single or double systems failure?

Really?