My name's Fierro. Martin Fierro. I'm a Post Police.
Posted on 09/22/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by the tongue
Concerning the Jetblue emergency landing yesterday, a question came to me. They flew around LA for three hours using up fuel because they couldn't dump the fuel. Nothing else was wrong with the plane, so why didn't they fly to NY (their destination) and land there? What does it matter where the landing took place? At least everybody would have been where they were going,and the fuel wouldn't have been wasted. Am I nuts here?
One reason to land at LAX was because the landing would occur during daylight. If the worst had happened, it would be far better to conduct rescue operations during the day rather than at night.
You're really after them today!
If one thing is broken, there is no telling what else is broken, too...................
All of what has been previously posted is true. In addition, LAX has some of the longest runways in the country, when the pilot of the Jetblue aircraft (who gave heroic service IMHO) landed he wanted to keep the nose of the plane off the ground for as long as possible to keep the landing gear from taking more abuse than it had to. Longer runways helped him do that.
LAX = 12,000 Ft runway (26 left I think). 3 hours of low altitude, high burnrate flight is more measurable than a cross country high drag trip.
Pilot did great good!
Top sends
1) While flying around burning fuel the flight crew was also in contact with Flight Engineering attempting to see if anything could be done.
2) I don't think the front gear would retract - thus they wouldn't want to fly to N.Y. with gear down.
3) Weather in LA was perfect.
4) Weather in N.Y. - unknown, but probably DARK. If you've got to manage an emergency it's probably better to do it in daylight.
5) LAX had a very long runway available (4 parallel runways) and good emergency equipment available.
6) If you have a known emergency don't make it any worse! What would have happened had they started to N.Y. and then were forced to land somewhere else due to a different emergency? Good chance the other site would not be as well prepared as LAX.
Just my $.02
I think it was also because LA had the longest runway available.
Four when you count the insulting headline. Yeah, they didn't "think". Air Traffic/Pilots/All Them Guys just suddenly lost their heads, and the poster wants to know why.
My name's Fierro. Martin Fierro. I'm a Post Police.
"Supposidly that plane has no ability to dump fuel
That was from 2 aircraft mechanics I work with"
Isn't that a safety hazard? What if you have to make an emergency landing and you can't fly around for three hours?
Heroic is an understatement...
He landed it with one of the most gentle nose wheel high landings I have ever seen...and if you watch the video closely you can watch as he feathers the wheel up and down serveal times before he puts it all the way down...
I did hear that the particular pilot of this flight was the national safety director for the Airline pilots association.. So if there was a pilot for the job he was the one...
Funny how God puts the right people in the right place (IMHO).
Yes!
I noticed that, I was stunned by the skill the pilot showed. I was so sure that front gear would snap right off...
unfortunatly it is not illegal.. I consider it a safety issue but the airbus 320 (imagine that a french aircraft with out a important safety feature.) does not have the ability to dump excess gas.
A lot of good answers, I was going to say because they aren't British Airways (referencing how they twice flew across the atlantic with broken engines).
same here.. but he landed left of the line feathered it and I am also assuming he or the co pilot we also working the throttles a little... Just a awesome sight all the way around.
My pet peeve is the word they being used used without clarifying who "they" are. But in this case we know it is Jetblue so the title is okay with me.
In addition to all the obvious reasons already posted, a pilot interviewed last night noted that during the 3 hours the plane circled burning off fuel, he was in a "race track pattern" and always within straight shot of a runawy at LAX or Long Beach, just in case he'd have lost more maneuverability and had to set down quickly.
Its an airbus designed by the French and other europeans.They saved money by not putting fuel dumps on!Imagine a cabin fire with full tanks! There isn't a Boeing built that doesn't have fuel dumps. Also, why does Airbus retract their nose gear with a 90 degree twist, is it to save a little space in the retracted mode?? That would be the dumbest idea a reasonable Engineer could come up with. Betcha Boeing doesn't rotate any of their nose gear. And We know if the pilot per chance wiggles the tail rudder a little the entire tail falls off along with the engines.
Thank you, I will fly Boeing everytime!
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.