Posted on 06/20/2012 10:14:52 AM PDT by lbryce
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.
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.
Don’t blame the engineers, blame the bureacrats in Brussels who dictated the specifications.
“Travis McGhie”?
I’ve read all of his books... ;~)
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
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!
No fuel dumping capability? A-320 ping....
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.
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?
“......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.
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
|
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.
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.
In the report linked to in post #10 it states that two hydraulic systems failed
Someone had to ping you on this....
“Dont 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.
{I}If the plane cant dump fuel and has to remain in the sky anyway, why didnt they just continue the flight and thereby minimize the inconvenience to the passengers?
Really: youre going to be in the air all that time, might as well get where youre 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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.