[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

[lbryce]

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

[Hulka]

Indeed, but usually the requirement to dump fuel is for jets that are “heavy” and therefore unable to safely stop on a runway without getting “hot brakes.” Lower weight means lower approach and landing speed.

Also, weight affects the landing gear—is it stressed to take a fully-fueled landing? Boeing jets that can't dump fuel are stressed to take a fully fueled landing.

Departing from Orlando a few years back, steady climb-out, BANG, number 1 engine just ate itself. We did a sweeping turn and landed. . .easily, no dumping of fuel.

Don't know the technical aspects of Airbus, don't know if they have the ability to dump or not, but in any case, sounds like a tremendous lack of judgment on the part of the aircrew—the status of being fully fueled or not should not drive the decision to land/not land.

What concerns me is the decision to continue flying with failing hydraulics. . .hydraulics that affect flight controls.

I am stunned they would choose to continue to fly under those conditions.

Say the remaining hydraulic systems fail and now you have no choice but to “land,” but now you don't get to pick WHERE you will land.

Failing hydraulics mean land as soon a practical.

[100American]

Nice try but no cigar, the models mentioned are no longer in service for the most part and even the ones mentioned did not have it but it was added after initial production