Replies

Can someone please tell me why they didn't burn feul by flying to New York as scheduled?

The law requires that with such an instance, you must land at the 'nearest suitable' airport. A case could be made for going a lot of other places other than LAX - but not to fly to JFK.

48 posted on 09/22/2005 4:53:01 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)

Now that makes sense. Thank you.

53 posted on 09/22/2005 7:12:23 PM PDT by csmusaret (Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)

To: safisoft; csmusaret

Can someone please tell me why they didn't burn fuel by flying to New York as scheduled? The law requires that with such an instance, you must land at the 'nearest suitable' airport. A case could be made for going a lot of other places other than LAX - but not to fly to JFK.

The is also besides the fact that you really wouldn't be ably to fly from LAX to JFK with the gear stuck down (the drag) and also flight restricted to say a max of 200 knots?

What I don't get is not being able to dump fuel.. what if you had a flight emergence when you had to get down asap and no time to burn fuel off, conversely if the contention is that landing with a full load in an A320 is a non issue why the long orbit to burn fuel off... somebody seem to think the lighter the fuel load the safer the landing

55 posted on 09/22/2005 7:44:00 PM PDT by tophat9000 (This bulletin just in:"Chinese's Fire Drill's" will now be known as "New Orleans' Hurricane Drill's")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794