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?
I wonder why there is no ability to dump fuel. Is it some craphead leftist European enviro law?
That's interesting. My question was why didn't they brace the nose of the aircraft prior to disembarking passengers? I kept thinking "what if it snaps now" as they were unloading passengers.
Longer runway in LA is what I heard.
You better believe that Jet Blue people were on the phone with the Air Bus designers and running computer models trying to figure out the best course of action. They had 3 hours to decide what to do. I watched this live and it was probably the most dramatic thing I have ever watched. I was praying for the pilot and passengers. With all the blame game lately it was great to see what looked like EVERYONE doing the right thing here. I bet not one passenger did not give the pilot a big hug and thanks before leaving that plane.
That kind of sums it up in a nutshell, now doesn't it?
"Isn't that a safety hazard? What if you have to make an emergency landing and you can't fly around for three hours?"
I heard an Air Bus rep say this plane was designed to take a belly landing.
Yes, you are nuts. Most of the other posters have identified the drag factors and risk from having to make an emergency landing at an unprepared airfield. There is also the risk of flying cross-country at cruising altitude with the potential buffeting from turbulence that could cause additional damage from parts coming loose that would make the situation substantially worse.
If the passenger's destination is an early grave, then your idea of flying across country with a damaged aircraft is perfectly sound. Otherwise, it is far better to "waste" a little fuel than the lives of the passengers. In most emergencies, one prefers to err on the side of safety.
There are several Boeing aircraft that don't have the capability to dump fuel; and it's not a safety issue (full tanks are much safer than partially full tanks, as long as they aren't ruptured and atomizing the resulting leak).
It's an aircraft performance issue. Most of the heavies have a far higher max takeoff weight than max landing weight. Therefore provisions must be made to rapidly dump fuel in order to get to a safe landing weight in case of an extreme emergency. The A320 could have turned right around and safely landed with a full bag of gas, but they wanted the plane as light as possible to mitigate damage to the nose gear and stop the plane in as short a distance as possible.
Your lunatic ranting about Airbus aircraft are juvenile and irresponsible. There is not an aeronautical engineer out there, French or otherwise, that would knowingly compromise safety in design.
"That's interesting. My question was why didn't they brace the nose of the aircraft prior to disembarking passengers? I kept thinking "what if it snaps now" as they were unloading passengers."
My thoughts exactly. Also there were people STANDING UNDER the damn thing.
It was dark in NY by the time they landed.
"...landing took place in daylight - better conditions for pilot and rescue workers...."
And helicopter-bourne camera crews(who, btw, got some excellent video of the landing). The vid could and probably will be used in the investegation.
I think the French dedcide that it was a feature they did not want to include, and the euro laws on avaition are much looser then ares....and the FAA gave them a waiver to fly in the US.
It is a stupid design if you ask me.
"...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...."
Perhaps an emergency landing at Memphis International Airport. It's been used for emergencies and has excellent long and uncluttered approaches. No towers or tall buildings to interupt any approach that might be needed.
Are You an Engineer, Sir?????????????????
Personally, I was pretty alarmed to learn that some commercial jetliners can't quickly dump their fuel tanks. I'm surprised this is allowed. Often when a plane is having mechanical problems, they have only minutes to dump fuel. It was only because this plane had a clearly small and well-isolated problem, that it was able to fly around for an extended period until the fuel was low enough to land safely.
Engineer or not, his points are valid if a bit strongly stated.
One more point - the Airbus nose gear does not rotate 90 degrees upon retraction. The rotation of JetBlue's gear yesterday was an abnormal condition.
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.