Author Topic: Jet Blue flight about to make "soft landing" at LAX (Read 1725 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #30 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:37:17 PM »

Now it's time for the FOD walkdown.

Oh joy.

Hangtime · « **Reply #31 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:37:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Why? Burning the fuel off is simpler and safer than dealing with a dump.

If the plane can't dump fuel, the only thing they've lost is time.

Time can be a factor on your side.. or dead against it. Not having the ability to emergency dump fuel is a liability.

That's another problem for Airbus.

Golfer · « **Reply #32 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:38:03 PM »

Same thing happened to one of our charter Navajos a couple years ago. I was working the line when the tower called down with one of our airplanes inbound with an emergency, was kind of odd since I didn't recognize the tail number as the charter aircraft were based at a different airport. He came in, circled a few times and we could clearly see a nosewheel 90º to the long axis of the airplane.

Chief pilot was flying at the time on a 135 check and he made the best landing I've seen in any airplane and left a 1000' long black mark right down the middle of the centerline about 1500' down the runway. A lot of smoke and that was it. Hooked up the Jetporter to it and towed it in to the shop. New tire, tube and nosewheel locking pin and the airplane was as good as new.

What we saw on the news tonight was outstanding airmanship and I've seen it twice now. Great job!

SaburoS · « **Reply #33 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:38:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Flamable paint on the runway?

WTF?

Every time the strut/rim/tires touched a paint line the flames REALLY sparked up.

Hope somebody gets THAT fixed.

Congrats to the pilots.. nice job.

I think it was the magnesium/aluminum wheels that were igniting/flaming on contact. The extremely white "hot" flames is a characteristic.

Sandman · « **Reply #34 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:38:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Yeah good point for this flight. However we cant predict all mechanical failures. Hydraulic leak? Better to have to put her down now rather than burn off fuel.

Imagine now that instead of a mechanical emergency, someone had a heart attack and needs immediate medical care. I'd sure like the pilot having the option for a fuel dump if the need arises and time is of the essence.

I know, a bunch of what ifs.

Exactly... Here's one... What if the fuel dump fails and begins an uncommanded fuel dump midway between LA and Hawaii?

Sandman · « **Reply #35 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:39:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Time can be a factor on your side.. or dead against it. Not having the ability to emergency dump fuel is a liability.

That's another problem for Airbus.

Can Boeing dump fuel?

Fishu · « **Reply #36 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:43:49 PM »

Fuel dumps aren't on all plane models and not even on every fuel tank.
For example plane might have fuel dumping pumps for the wing tanks, but not for the center tank, ie. B757/B767

midnight Target · « **Reply #37 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:47:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Time can be a factor on your side.. or dead against it. Not having the ability to emergency dump fuel is a liability.

That's another problem for Airbus.

They discussed this with an Airbus instructor pilot on our local news. He said the ability to dump fuel is only put onto large aircraft that have a major difference between takeoff weight and maximum landing weight. The 320, 737 etc. can almost land at the same weight they take off at.

Curval · « **Reply #38 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:52:12 PM »

That fire was the tires, surely?

Whatever though...I am in awe of that pilot and his crew.

I've been on planes that have landed waaaaaaaaay worse than that with perfect gear. The plane stayed on that centre line until it stopped!!

Outstanding.

Godzilla · « **Reply #39 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:56:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
That fire was the tires, surely?

Whatever though...I am in awe of that pilot and his crew.

I've been on planes that have landed waaaaaaaaay worse than that with perfect gear. The plane stayed on that centre line until it stopped!!

Outstanding.

I'd bet that the shaking and such was pretty bad, but not visible on film.

Curval · « **Reply #40 on:** September 21, 2005, 08:59:40 PM »

Yea, your prolly right.

john9001 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:02:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval

I've been on planes that have landed waaaaaaaaay worse than that with perfect gear.

aint dat da truth, i had a 737 landing so hard i thought it blew a tire, asked the pilot about it afterwards, he had no comment.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:24:19 PM »

Not sure about airliners but the F-15 has the ability to dump fuel. I have yet to ever see the system fail. The only thing remotely close to a failure is when there is a drastic change in temperature and the surge boxes are full. The butterfly valve will open and allow the pressure to vent off.

Our system even has the ability to vent fuel to whatever amount the aircrew wants. Once it's reached this value the system will automatically shut itself off. I'd have to guess fuel dump systems are more than trust worthy.

I'm suprised they didn't use Edwards to land that bird. That's what our dry lake bed is there for. Pilots land on it constantly just for training and we've even had a C-17 land due to an almost identical failure.

Fishu · « **Reply #43 on:** September 21, 2005, 09:50:24 PM »

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L/

SaburoS · « **Reply #44 on:** September 21, 2005, 10:06:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
They discussed this with an Airbus instructor pilot on our local news. He said the ability to dump fuel is only put onto large aircraft that have a major difference between takeoff weight and maximum landing weight. The 320, 737 etc. can almost land at the same weight they take off at.

Ahh that explains it then. Obviously because of the extra weight of the fuel, burning it off had to be done to not tax the front gear any further.
If it was an emergency where time to land was of the essence, they would be able to land with full fuel load.

Okay, I'll fly Airbus