Why can't the French dump fuel?

[Robert M. Gary]

Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
What factors would go into such a design compromise?
-Robert

[Kev]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
> What factors would go into such a design compromise?

Go to:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting?hl=en

and enter "fuel dump" in the rec.aviation.piloting search box. Then
read or sort by date.

Also see:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2126743/

And "Ask the Captain":

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-09-26-column_x.htm

[James Robinson]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump
> fuel. What factors would go into such a design compromise?

Because they don't have to, just like the 737 isn't able to dump fuel.
No compromise.

The reason larger aircraft need the ability to dump fuel is that they
need so much for longer flights, that when they takeoff, the aircraft is
heavier than the maximum weight with which they are normally allowed to
land. Fuel is consumed during a normal flight, and the weight drops
below the normal landing weight before the aircraft gets to the
destination.

If they have to land early in flight, before they have burned much fuel,
then the aircraft needs the ability to dump fuel to bring the weight
down to the allowable landing weight.

In an emergency, when they don't have the time to dump fuel, they will
land overweight, and the aircraft simply gets an extra inspection to
make sure everything is OK before it flies again.

In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
of fuel.

[Robert M. Gary]

> In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
of fuel.

Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
dump fuel even in my Mooney.

-Robert

[sfb]

Dumping or burning off fuel was the least of the pilot's worries. There
was no emergency in the sense that the plane had to land immediately.
The pilot took his time consulting with experts on the ground. Jet Blue
doesn't serve LAX. They fly out of Long Beach so where to land was part
of the consultation.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full
>> load
> of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want
> to
> burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
> dump fuel even in my Mooney.
>
> -Robert
>

[Yossarian]

Controllability on the ground was unknown so they went for lower
landing weight to get shorter stopping distance.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
> of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
> burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
> dump fuel even in my Mooney.
>
> -Robert

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> > In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
> of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
> burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
> dump fuel even in my Mooney.

I would think landing at a minimum weight would help reduce the
probability of nose gear failure. Also, 3 hours of fuel burned in
the air is far better than burning on the ground, if you know what
I mean. With respect to flying around for 3 hour... well... they could.
There was no need to land immediately.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[John Gaquin]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
> burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel.

The prime objective of the three-hour fly-around was not to burn off fuel.
The time was used consulting with engineering to make sure all alternatives
and technical sources had been considered before committing to a compromised
landing. Having said that, burning off the fuel didn't hurt. While a
reduced landing weight wasn't technically required, it was still more
desirable than a heavier landing weight in the instance.

[Joe Feise]

Robert M. Gary wrote on 9/27/2005 14:07:
>>In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
>
> of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX?

The last link provided by Kev has the likely answer:
"The primary reason to burn off the extra fuel was that a heavier plane
has a faster landing speed. Since a slower airspeed on landing was the
objective in this case, the course of action was to lighten the load by
burning off some fuel and when landing, lower the nose gear at as slow
an airspeed as possible."

-Joe

[Robert M. Gary]

> Jet Blue doesn't serve LAX.

Jet Blue claimed they have a major maint. hanger at LAX. More likey it
is a contract maint shop that does their major maint.

> There was no emergency in the sense that the plane had to land immediately

They flew in circles for 3 hours. You certainly can't believe they
thought they had a chance to get it down for that entire time. The news
reports was that they were burning off fuel. That seems more logical
than simply taking 3 hours to decide the gear wasn't going to fix
itself. This also sounds like an EXCELLENT argument for the ability to
dump fuel.

-Robert

[James Robinson]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>> In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full
>> load of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want
> to burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I
> can dump fuel even in my Mooney.

As others have said, they first consulted with their dispatch and
maintenance, which took time. The original intent was to land in Long
Beach, but when they found the gear rotated, they changed to LAX. That
took more time. LAX was picked because of the longer runways, and better
emergency services.

Once they decided to head toward LAX, they had already burned a fair
amount of fuel. Any additional time flying around helped:

- Lower landing speed
- Less impact force when the nose gear dropped
- Shorter stopping distance once on ground

As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:
Something else to fix, something else to go wrong, plus it adds
unproductive weight.

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> The news
> reports was that they were burning off fuel. That seems more logical
> than simply taking 3 hours to decide the gear wasn't going to fix
> itself.

I am surprised that you, a pilot yourself, place so much faith in the news
report of this incident.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Robert M. Gary]

> The last link provided by Kev has the likely answer:
>"The primary reason to burn off the extra fuel was that a heavier plane
>has a faster landing speed. Since a slower airspeed on landing was the
>objective in this case, the course of action was to lighten the load by
>burning off some fuel and when landing, lower the nose gear at as slow
>an airspeed as possible."

Joe,
You sound like an EXCELLENT advocate for having the ability to dump
fuel too!!!

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:

Of course, everything is a cost driver. Whether or not to have carpet
is a cost decision. The real question is what the benefit side looked
like in their cost/benefit talks.

-Robert

[Bushleague]

It's labeled "Dump" down to a 3000# minimum on NWA 320's. See above.
Enviro in this case perhaps.

Have a great one!

Bush

On 27 Sep 2005 13:29:55 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
>What factors would go into such a design compromise?
>-Robert

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.

Because it has no need to.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> This also sounds like an EXCELLENT argument for the ability to
> dump fuel.

Maybe to you, but it's not.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike W.]

Put another way, why provide a way to dump fuel when you can just run it
through the engines.

They didn't need to lose weight that fast, they didn't need to land 'right
now'. The fact that they flew around in circles for three hours was probably
a good thing, time to examine every possibility and double check everything
before landing.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:
>
> Of course, everything is a cost driver. Whether or not to have carpet
> is a cost decision. The real question is what the benefit side looked
> like in their cost/benefit talks.
>
> -Robert
>

[Don Hammer]

The FAA certification requirement for a fuel dump system is a takeoff
weight that is greater than 135% (I think) of the max landing weight.
They don't add the complexity and cost of a dump system unless it is
required for certification.

The 707-123 I flew had a empty weight of 120,000 lbs, max TO weight of
256,000 lbs, 112,000 lbs of fuel, a max landing weight of 190,000
pounds,(135%) had a dump system. A 757-200 at 256,000 lbs carries
83,000 lbs of fuel, max landing weight of 198,000 lbs (130%) does not.
BTW the 757 with 29,000 lbs less fuel has the same range as a 707-100
with the same passenger load.

The 707 system has standpipes that let you dump only to get you down
to max landing weight, leaving in our case about 70,000 lbs of fuel.
That being said, I'd have flown around several hours after dumping, if
there was no immediate emergency , to get as light and non-flamable as
possible before landing. Their gear problem was not an emergency and
I doubt the crew declaired one even though they asked for the
equipment. Emergencies require immediate action. (think fire) BTW a
single engine failure is not classified as an emergency either. The
aircraft is certified to climb at max takeoff weight on a single
engine.

I'm sure the airlines, EPA, and everyone else would rather the fuel be
burnt as normal rather than dumped into the air and sea. In an
emergency, planes that don't have a dump system will do an overweight
landing and and have to do an overweight landing inspection prior to
next flight. Given the choice, it's better to burn it down than do
the inspection.

[N93332]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> The fact that they flew around in circles for three hours was probably
> a good thing, time to examine every possibility and double check
> everything
> before landing.

(OT!) I thought they just flew around for a 3 hour tour as a tribute to a
late actor...

[Bob Moore]

Don Hammer > wrote

> The FAA certification requirement for a fuel dump system is a takeoff
> weight that is greater than 135% (I think) of the max landing weight.
> They don't add the complexity and cost of a dump system unless it is
> required for certification.

Don, the rules have changed since you and I flew those old Boeings. :-)

Section 25.1001: Fuel jettisoning system.
(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless
it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of §§25.119
and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed
weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff,
go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane
configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting
the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance
requirements of this part.

(b) If a fuel jettisoning system is required it must be capable of
jettisoning enough fuel within 15 minutes, starting with the weight
given in paragraph (a) of this section, to enable the airplane to meet
the climb requirements of §§25.119 and 25.121(d), assuming that the fuel
is jettisoned under the conditions, except weight, found least favorable
during the flight tests prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

(f) For turbine engine powered airplanes, means must be provided to
prevent jettisoning the fuel in the tanks used for takeoff and landing
below the level allowing climb from sea level to 10,000 feet and
thereafter allowing 45 minutes cruise at a speed for maximum range.
However, if there is an auxiliary control independent of the main
jettisoning control, the system may be designed to jettison the
remaining fuel by means of the auxiliary jettisoning control.


Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Morgans]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
> burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
> dump fuel even in my Mooney.

The plane would be able to land at the weight that it was at, but that would
have been two negative things. One, it would have meant extra weight on the
already overstressed nose gear. Two, it would have meant a faster landing
speed, and faster speed that the nose would have been let down.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > As to why no provision for fuel dump, I suspect it is a cost driver:
>
> Of course, everything is a cost driver. Whether or not to have carpet
> is a cost decision. The real question is what the benefit side looked
> like in their cost/benefit talks.

Why is dumping fuel needed? It can still climb at engine out with full
fuel, no need to dump there. If they can get up, and stay up, no need to
dump; they are safe.

What in this case? Were they in danger, flying around? No? Why dump,
then? Could they have landed immediately, in a case of immediate danger?
Absolutely. Still, you are asking. Why would they need to dump? They were
in no danger.
--
Jim in NC

[Brad Zeigler]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
> of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
> burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
> dump fuel even in my Mooney.

The crew is paid by the hour?

[jbaloun]

>I'm sure the airlines, EPA, and everyone else would rather the fuel be
>burnt as normal rather than dumped into the air and sea.


I heard that the environmental impact of dumping fuel is not as bad as
it might seem. As the volatile fuel is sprayed into the air it tends to
oxidize and the result is similar to burning it in the engine. I am not
too sure of this when considering the complex chemistry of turbofan
combustion in flight. From the combustion chamber, out the nozzle and
through the downwash behind the plane the combustion reaction
continues. Dumping fuel sprays it into turbulent air without the
initial combustion and expansion so it is likely much different. I was
a payload integration engineer in support of the NASA DC-8 (which had
the ability to dump of course) on the SUCCESS mission to fly planes
behind and around each other to sample the exhaust products and
characterize the chemistry. The pilots had to be careful not to get
caught in the tip vortex.

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/success/daily_summary/Highlights/960418.hil.html

In the above photo our engineering group installed the canoe sized
instrument fairing on the side of the plane just forward of the aft
service door. We also installed the pod under the forward fuselage. As
the elevator is tab powered and the fairing is in front of it, we were
crossing our fingers during the taxi test and flight test.

http://uap-www.nrl.navy.mil/dynamics/html/success2May1996.html

http://raf.atd.ucar.edu/~dcrogers/GRL/grl.html

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/success/

James

[Seth Masia]

If you put a fuel dump system in an airplane that doesn't need it, and it
does an inadvertent dump, who is liable for the subsequent water landing?

Seth
N8100R

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:tbl_e.21584$Fh4.12558@trndny03...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
>
> Because it has no need to.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[ThomasH]

On 27-Sep-05 13:29, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
> What factors would go into such a design compromise?
> -Robert


It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is French. :-)

It is not. It is rather a product of an international consortium
(British, German, French, Italian) in which French does not have
the largest financial stake anyway...

The making of an Airbus is literally like the caricature about
the bureaucracy in the "United Europe." It is a maze of parts and
subcomponent tourism (Super Goopies and Belugas are being used.)
For example wings for the A320 are being made in Bremen, Germany.
Many wing components come from Britain, after which they ship the
wings to Toulouse, France in a Goopy. etc etc. You name it, every
Airbus model has its own subdivision of manufacturing sites and
different logistics.

Thomas

[Sylvain]

ThomasH wrote:

> The making of an Airbus is literally like the caricature about
> the bureaucracy in the "United Europe." It is a maze of parts and
> subcomponent tourism (Super Goopies and Belugas are being used.)
> For example wings for the A320 are being made in Bremen, Germany.
> Many wing components come from Britain, after which they ship the
> wings to Toulouse, France in a Goopy. etc etc.

and who makes the nose gear specifically? :-)

--Sylvain

[Hank]

> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
> What factors would go into such a design compromise?

After listening to you in this thread, I'll bet you're one of those people
who thinks its a good idea for ATC to be able to take over flying an
airplane in an emergency.

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> What in this case? Were they in danger, flying around? No? Why dump,
> then? Could they have landed immediately, in a case of immediate danger?
> Absolutely. Still, you are asking. Why would they need to dump? They
> were
> in no danger.


Then why not fly on to London, er...NY?

I wonder how far they would have gotten at half speed ...Iowa?


Montblack

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:40:55 -0700, ThomasH > wrote:

>It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is French. :-)

It is, for all practical purposes. There would be no Airbus without
France; it's located in Toulouse; and France is the largest
stakeholder.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[AJ]

Because they are French.

[James Robinson]

Cub Driver > wrote:

> ThomasH wrote:
>
>> It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is French.
>> :-)
>
> It is, for all practical purposes. There would be no Airbus without
> France; it's located in Toulouse; and France is the largest
> stakeholder.

Not true. The Toulouse plant may be where final assembly is done, and
where the operating headquarters of Airbus is located, but there are a
number of other manufacturing plants, and France is not the largest
stakeholder. The company is 20% owned by British Aerospace, with the
remaining 80% owned by EADS.

According to the following site, the ownership or EADS is:

www.reports.eads.net/2004/ar_2004/en/_c_b3_3_3_0.php

- 30.2% Daimler Chrysler
- 15.1% Government of France
- 15.1% Lagardère (A French corporation)
- 5.5% Government of Spain
- 33.2% Publicly held shares

Therefore, the French government only owns about 12% of airbus, and is
not the largest shareholder.

[James Robinson]

Sylvain > wrote:

> ThomasH wrote:
>
>> The making of an Airbus is literally like the caricature about
>> the bureaucracy in the "United Europe." It is a maze of parts and
>> subcomponent tourism (Super Goopies and Belugas are being used.)
>> For example wings for the A320 are being made in Bremen, Germany.
>> Many wing components come from Britain, after which they ship the
>> wings to Toulouse, France in a Goopy. etc etc.
>
> and who makes the nose gear specifically? :-)

Nessier-Dowty, who are also supplying the gear for the Boeing 787. The nose
gear for the A320 is manufactured in their plant in Bidos, France.

[James Robinson]

"Seth Masia" > wrote:

> If you put a fuel dump system in an airplane that doesn't need it, and
> it does an inadvertent dump, who is liable for the subsequent water
> landing?

Most dump equipment will not jettison all the fuel. They typically will
leave a minimum amount to ensure the scenario you are painting will not
happen.

[James Robinson]

"jbaloun" > wrote:

>> I'm sure the airlines, EPA, and everyone else would rather the fuel be
>> burnt as normal rather than dumped into the air and sea.
>
> I heard that the environmental impact of dumping fuel is not as bad as
> it might seem. As the volatile fuel is sprayed into the air it tends
> to oxidize and the result is similar to burning it in the engine.

Then why are gas pumps in many places fitted with systems to capture the
vapors from fueling? Why is barbeque lighter fluid banned in many
jurisdictions? Why is there a push to ban oil-based paint and thinners?

The reality is that unburned hydrocarbons are a major source of air
pollution. The occasional fuel dump will not have a huge effect on the
environment, but it is still better if the fuel is burned in a well-
maintained engine.

[Andrew Gideon]

Bob Moore wrote:

> 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight

This is how it was explained to me; an ex-member of our club that flies for
"a major" simplified it to "one-engine-out missed approach": if the plane
can do that at t/o weight, no dump system required.

This is distinct from the maximum landing weight, which involves other
factors. In an emergency, therefore, a pilot might need to make an
"overweight landing".

- Andrew

[jbaloun]

>The reality is that unburned hydrocarbons are a major source of air
>pollution. The occasional fuel dump will not have a huge effect on the
>environment, but it is still better if the fuel is burned in a well-
>maintained engine.

I did not say that it would be better to dump fuel rather than burn it
in the engine. Burning in the very efficient modern turbofan is a
better way to dispose of the high energy fuel, maybe the best way (just
from a chemestry point of view let alone the value of flying a plane).
I did not say there would not be an environmental impact, just that the
fuel dumped in flight is likely oxidized and would not stay in the air
or land on the ground in the form of raw fuel. I understand that fuel
dumping is very rare compared to the number of flights per year. It is
so rare that the any regulatory agencies may not be concerned about the
yearly amount of fuel dumped as compared to the overall amound of fuel
burned. The cumulative impact of automobile (gasoline) refueling vapors
being released is much greater than that due to (kerosene) fuel dumped
in flight. In addition, dumping fuel is almost always done to respond
to an urgent situation on an aircraft where the environmental cost is
outweighed by flight safety.

Aircraft engine manufacturers have made amazing strides in improved
efficiency. And still researchers are considering how to continue to
improve engines while reducing emissions. It would have been
interesting if the SUCCESS mission took measurements of fuel being
dumped in flight. If I had thought of it I would have suggested it
then. Oh well.

James

[Darrell S]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full
>> load of fuel.
>
> Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
> landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want
> to burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I
> can dump fuel even in my Mooney.
>
> -Robert

They burned off the fuel to reduce weight. Less weight means a lower
approach and touchdown speed. Less weight means less mass to slow down
once they're on the ground. I would imagine they turned their autobrakes
off since, without nosewheel steering, they would need to use differential
braking for steering purposes. Minimum weight would allow them to not have
to land right at the beginning of the runway and not have to use excessive
braking to stop the aircraft within the runway length. This way they could
concentrate on a smooth touchdown and slow lowering of the nose gear.

I made an emergency landing on 25R at LAX in a 737-200 which had lost all
hydraulic power and the electrical emergency flap extension failed also. So
we had to make a manual reversion no-flap landing with emergency gear
extension. We had no nose wheel steering and used differential braking for
steering. We had to be careful with it since we only had accumulator power
for brakes and thrust reversers. We got it stopped about half way down the
runway and then were towed to our gate.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Robert M. Gary]

That's what happened to the Lynard Skynard band. They took off with one
bad engine (some fly by night 135 operator). Once that engine failed
they tried to xfer fuel to the other tank to run the one remaining
engine. However, what they really did was dump all the fuel overboard.
As I recall, they landed in a field, killing the singer and one or two
of the spouses on board.

-Robert

[CV]

James Robinson wrote:

> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>
>>ThomasH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is French.
>>>:-)
>>
>>It is, for all practical purposes. There would be no Airbus without
>>France; it's located in Toulouse; and France is the largest
>>stakeholder.
>
>
> Not true. The Toulouse plant may be where final assembly is done, and
> where the operating headquarters of Airbus is located, but there are a
> number of other manufacturing plants, and France is not the largest
> stakeholder. The company is 20% owned by British Aerospace, with the
> remaining 80% owned by EADS.
>
> According to the following site, the ownership or EADS is:
>
> www.reports.eads.net/2004/ar_2004/en/_c_b3_3_3_0.php
>
> - 30.2% Daimler Chrysler
> - 15.1% Government of France
> - 15.1% Lagardère (A French corporation)
> - 5.5% Government of Spain
> - 33.2% Publicly held shares
>
> Therefore, the French government only owns about 12% of airbus, and is
> not the largest shareholder.

Why should that interest anyone?

What those figures do show is that French ownership is in the range
24.16 to 50.72 %, depending on what portion of the "Publicly held
shares" are in French hands.

Even at the minimum limit of 24 %, French participation is
still bigger than that of any other country, as far as one
can tell from those numbers.

So which country has a larger stake than France according to you ?

CV

[B. Jensen]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Joe,
> You sound like an EXCELLENT advocate for having the ability to dump
> fuel too!!!
>
> -Robert

Robert,

Why are you in such a hurry to dump fuel? Doing that starts to limit
your time / options available for trouble shooting the problem and
diverting to another airport.

The first two memory items on any emergency checklist are:

1. FLY THE AIRPLANE
2. DON'T HURRY

Dumping fuel violates #2. Besides, IF you really need to land in a
hurry, the A320 can do that at any weight. These guys took off for NY
with a full load of passengers. That means that they had a lot of fuel
onboard and a heavy takeoff weight. To land at that weight would have
required a much higher landing speed. Since they had the hydraulics
(green system) turned off to the nosewheel steering system, (per
emergency checklist) this also reduced their braking ability because
this same hydraulic system also controls the #1 engine reverse, and
normal braking, i.e. antiskid assisted braking.

BJ
A320 Capt.

[Capt. Geoffry Thorpe]

One consideration would be the potential for a fuel dump system
malfunciton...

What would you be asking if an A320 had gone kersplash in the ocean because
of a fuel loss from a dump system that it didn't need?

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail

Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
> What factors would go into such a design compromise?
> -Robert
>

[Stefan]

CV wrote:

>> - 30.2% Daimler Chrysler
>> - 15.1% Government of France
>> - 15.1% Lagardère (A French corporation)
>> - 5.5% Government of Spain
>> - 33.2% Publicly held shares

> So which country has a larger stake than France according to you ?

What percentage of Daimler Chrisler is USA owned? ;-)

> Why should that interest anyone?

Exactly.

Stefan

[Morgans]

"jbaloun" > wrote

> I did not say there would not be an environmental impact, just that the
> fuel dumped in flight is likely oxidized and would not stay in the air
> or land on the ground in the form of raw fuel.

I think you are making a mistake, in you use of "oxidized" in this case.

"Oxidized" is combining it with oxygen chemically, as in "burning". In this
case, there is no combining chemically, but only vaporization, as in
evaporating. In both cases, no fuel reaches the ground.
--
Jim in NC

[James Robinson]

CV > wrote:

> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Cub Driver > wrote:
>>
>>> ThomasH wrote:
>>>
>>>> It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is
>>>> French.
>>>
>>> It is, for all practical purposes. There would be no Airbus without
>>> France; it's located in Toulouse; and France is the largest
>>> stakeholder.
>>
>> Not true. The Toulouse plant may be where final assembly is done,
>> and where the operating headquarters of Airbus is located, but there
>> are a number of other manufacturing plants, and France is not the
>> largest stakeholder. The company is 20% owned by British Aerospace,
>> with the remaining 80% owned by EADS.
>>
>> According to the following site, the ownership or EADS is:
>>
>> www.reports.eads.net/2004/ar_2004/en/_c_b3_3_3_0.php
>>
>> - 30.2% Daimler Chrysler
>> - 15.1% Government of France
>> - 15.1% Lagardère (A French corporation)
>> - 5.5% Government of Spain
>> - 33.2% Publicly held shares
>>
>> Therefore, the French government only owns about 12% of airbus, and
>> is not the largest shareholder.
>
> Why should that interest anyone?

Someone made an incorrect statement, I was simply correcting it.

> What those figures do show is that French ownership is in the range
> 24.16 to 50.72%, depending on what portion of the "Publicly held
> shares" are in French hands.
>
> Even at the minimum limit of 24%, French participation is
> still bigger than that of any other country, as far as one
> can tell from those numbers.
>
> So which country has a larger stake than France according to you ?

No country, but there are larger stakeholders. The poster had suggested
that France, as in the country, was the largest stakeholder (he didn't
say "the French" or "French shareholders") Daimler Chrysler is the
largest stakeholder, and British Aerospace is also larger than the
French Government.

[Flyingmonk]

Yossarian:
>so they went for lower landing weight to get shorter stopping distance.

And to reduce the size of any potential fireball afterwards.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-28, Capt. Geoffry Thorpe <The> wrote:
> What would you be asking if an A320 had gone kersplash in the ocean because
> of a fuel loss from a dump system that it didn't need?

Well, what navigational error caused an A320 to be going over the ocean
in the first place! (Does anyone fly trans-oceanic A320 flights?)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-28, CV > wrote:
> Even at the minimum limit of 24 %, French participation is
> still bigger than that of any other country, as far as one
> can tell from those numbers.

Since when was Daimler-Chrysler a French company?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Robert M. Gary]

> It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is French. :-)

I guess I'm just following the subsidies. :)

[Friedrich Ostertag]

B. Jensen wrote:
>> You sound like an EXCELLENT advocate for having the ability to dump
>> fuel too!!!

> Why are you in such a hurry to dump fuel? Doing that starts to limit
> your time / options available for trouble shooting the problem and
> diverting to another airport.
>
> The first two memory items on any emergency checklist are:
>
> 1. FLY THE AIRPLANE
> 2. DON'T HURRY
>
> Dumping fuel violates #2. Besides, IF you really need to land in a
> hurry, the A320 can do that at any weight. These guys took off for NY
> with a full load of passengers. That means that they had a lot of fuel
> onboard and a heavy takeoff weight. To land at that weight would have
> required a much higher landing speed. Since they had the hydraulics
> (green system) turned off to the nosewheel steering system, (per
> emergency checklist) this also reduced their braking ability because
> this same hydraulic system also controls the #1 engine reverse, and
> normal braking, i.e. antiskid assisted braking.

To me it's perfectly clear, that there was no need for the JetBlue A320
to dump fuel. Burning it was a much better option. But I can still
imagine emergencies, where one cannot afford to fly around for several
hours, yet still a reduced landing weight, lower than the allowable
maximum, and less fuel onboard (the fireball thing ..) would be
desireable. Say some sort of fire or smoke developing onboard, for
example, like the swissair accident, maybe in combination with some
structural damage. I would expect that dumping fuel just before the
landing would greatly reduce the risk of a big fireball.

However, the question is of course again, how likely is an event like
this, where fuel dumping even below max landing weight would be an
advantage and what is the cost and weight for the device.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Jay Honeck]

> Why is barbeque lighter fluid banned in many jurisdictions?

You're kidding, right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Why is barbeque lighter fluid banned in many jurisdictions?
>
> You're kidding, right?

California. Aspen also had a shot at it, but I think the law failed to pass.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jay Honeck]

>>>Why is barbeque lighter fluid banned in many jurisdictions?
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>
> California. Aspen also had a shot at it, but I think the law failed to
> pass.

Wow. Now I've heard everything.

Of course, today I learned that people in the Seattle, WA area cannot smoke
cigarettes *outside* in public areas -- which seem to be defined as pretty
much anywhere in the city.

As much as I hate smoking, that is amazing.

Why is it that so many areas of the country that pride themselves as being
"liberal" and "free" are neither?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[James Robinson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> Why is barbeque lighter fluid banned in many jurisdictions?
>
> You're kidding, right?

Partially.

As California has tightened up its air pollution regulations for
automobiles, it is approaching the point where cars are no longer the
major source of air pollution in the Los Angeles area. Other types of
pollution are starting to come into the crosshairs of the pollution
control districts, including such things as barbeque lighter fluid,
paint thinners, dry cleaning fluids, contact cement, and exhaust
emissions from small engines used for lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and
weed eaters.

Of particular concern are what they call Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) They estimate that something like 400 tons of VOCs are released
into the air in the San Francisco Bay area each day, down from 600 tons
15 years ago. (Compare that to the amount of fuel in a fuel dump)

As such, there have been a number of proposals to ban things that
contain such chemicals outright. In fact, commercial production of
chemicals like carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethane, and certain types
of Freon have ceased by international agreement.

Pressure on the manufacturers has been used instead, so oil-based paints
no longer use much xylene or toluene, water-based paints like latex are
being pushed more and more, contact cement no longer uses methyl ethyl
ketones, ink-jet cartridges use thinners derived from soy, and so on. It
extends to barbeque ligher fluids as well. The lighter fluid you get
today is not what you got 15 years ago. Most people haven't noticed the
difference, but teh fluid no longer contains the traditional chemicals
like naptha. Instead, low VOC solvents are used.

Getting back to fuel dumping. As the quantities of VOCs from other
sources drop to lower levels over time, don't be surprised to see the
air pollution regulators focus in on such things as fuel dumping. It
will become more and more of an issue if it grows in proportion to other
types of VOC emissions.

[James Robinson]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "James Robinson" > wrote>
>
>>In fact, commercial production of
>> chemicals like carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethane, and certain types
>> of Freon have ceased by international agreement.
>
> Freon is not a VOC, is it?

Certain types of Freon are. Those types are no longer used in new air
conditioning or refrigeration systems. Older systems will still have them,
but you can't replace lost fluid if you have a leak.

[George Patterson]

James Robinson wrote:

> Certain types of Freon are. Those types are no longer used in new air
> conditioning or refrigeration systems. Older systems will still have them,
> but you can't replace lost fluid if you have a leak.

Not with the older type of fluid, but you can replace it with the newer types.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Morgans]

"James Robinson" > wrote>

>In fact, commercial production of
> chemicals like carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethane, and certain types
> of Freon have ceased by international agreement.

Freon is not a VOC, is it?
--
Jim in NC

[James Robinson]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "James Robinson" > wrote
>
>> Certain types of Freon are. Those types are no longer used in new
>> air conditioning or refrigeration systems. Older systems will still
>> have
> them,
>> but you can't replace lost fluid if you have a leak.
>
> I think you are wrong about that. Sure, they are nasty things, in how
> they combine in the upper atmosphere to eat ozone, but VOC's are
> things that burn, and were not burned before they were released,
> right?

Volatile Organic Compounds do not have to burn. They simply evaporate
quickly, and can change chemically under the effects of sunlight.

> It all just has to do with classifications, and I believe Freon is in
> a different classification.

It may simply be classification, but the EPA considers certain types of
Freon to be VOCs. Here is a link to a couple of web sites that list
VOCs, including various types of Freon as examples:

http://www.skcinc.com/cff/1676.pdf
http://www.airquality.lanl.gov/pdf/NonRad/NonRadVOCTable3.pdf

[James Robinson]

"Morgans" > wrote:

> "James Robinson" > wrote
>
>> Certain types of Freon are. Those types are no longer used in new
>> air conditioning or refrigeration systems. Older systems will still
>> have them, but you can't replace lost fluid if you have a leak.
>
> Where did you hear that? That must have been nonexistium that the AC
> technician put in my AC at home this spring. <G>
>
> The old stuff is still available, but it costs more than the new
> stuff, and must be used by licensed tecs, and must be pumped out and
> recovered when conditions demand that it be removed from the system.
> I think I heard that the old stuff is not being manufactured anymore,
> but that the existing stockpiles will last for a few more years, but
> I'm not at all sure about that.

I assumed it was gone by now. They stopped making CFC-12 about 10 years
ago, and the only stocks were from what was drained from existing cars,
plus whatever stocks where in place when production ended.

You can also replace CFC-12 with other types of Freon. (like HFC-134a)
The replacements aren't quite as effective in older systems as CFC-12.

[Morgans]

"James Robinson" > wrote

> Certain types of Freon are. Those types are no longer used in new air
> conditioning or refrigeration systems. Older systems will still have
them,
> but you can't replace lost fluid if you have a leak.

I think you are wrong about that. Sure, they are nasty things, in how they
combine in the upper atmosphere to eat ozone, but VOC's are things that
burn, and were not burned before they were released, right?

It all just has to do with classifications, and I believe Freon is in a
different classification.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

m

"James Robinson" > wrote

> Certain types of Freon are. Those types are no longer used in new air
> conditioning or refrigeration systems. Older systems will still have
them,
> but you can't replace lost fluid if you have a leak.

Where did you hear that? That must have been nonexistium that the AC
technician put in my AC at home this spring. <G>

The old stuff is still available, but it costs more than the new stuff, and
must be used by licensed tecs, and must be pumped out and recovered when
conditions demand that it be removed from the system. I think I heard that
the old stuff is not being manufactured anymore, but that the existing
stockpiles will last for a few more years, but I'm not at all sure about
that.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"James Robinson" > wrote

> It may simply be classification, but the EPA considers certain types of
> Freon to be VOCs. Here is a link to a couple of web sites that list
> VOCs, including various types of Freon as examples:
>
> http://www.skcinc.com/cff/1676.pdf
> http://www.airquality.lanl.gov/pdf/NonRad/NonRadVOCTable3.pdf

OK, I learned something new today. Good by me. ;-)

[Jay Honeck]

> As such, there have been a number of proposals to ban things that
> contain such chemicals outright. In fact, commercial production of
> chemicals like carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethane, and certain types
> of Freon have ceased by international agreement.

Hey -- we used to clean our HO train set railroad tracks with carbon
tetrachloride, when I was a kid.

Sure made the tracks shiny!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[tony roberts]

>Why can't the French dump fuel?

Because they are only allowed to dump carburant.

HTH
Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[ThomasH]

On 28-Sep-05 15:50, James Robinson wrote:
> CV > wrote:
>
>
>>James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cub Driver > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>ThomasH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is
>>>>>French.
>>>>
>>>>It is, for all practical purposes. There would be no Airbus without
>>>>France; it's located in Toulouse; and France is the largest
>>>>stakeholder.
>>>
>>>Not true. The Toulouse plant may be where final assembly is done,
>>>and where the operating headquarters of Airbus is located, but there
>>>are a number of other manufacturing plants, and France is not the
>>>largest stakeholder. The company is 20% owned by British Aerospace,
>>>with the remaining 80% owned by EADS.
>>>
>>>According to the following site, the ownership or EADS is:
>>>
>>>www.reports.eads.net/2004/ar_2004/en/_c_b3_3_3_0.php
>>>
>>>- 30.2% Daimler Chrysler
>>>- 15.1% Government of France
>>>- 15.1% Lagardère (A French corporation)
>>>- 5.5% Government of Spain
>>>- 33.2% Publicly held shares
>>>
>>>Therefore, the French government only owns about 12% of airbus, and
>>>is not the largest shareholder.
>>
>>Why should that interest anyone?
>
> Someone made an incorrect statement, I was simply correcting it.
>
>>What those figures do show is that French ownership is in the range
>>24.16 to 50.72%, depending on what portion of the "Publicly held
>>shares" are in French hands.
>>
>>Even at the minimum limit of 24%, French participation is
>>still bigger than that of any other country, as far as one
>>can tell from those numbers.
>>
>>So which country has a larger stake than France according to you ?
>
> No country, but there are larger stakeholders. The poster had suggested
> that France, as in the country, was the largest stakeholder (he didn't
> say "the French" or "French shareholders") Daimler Chrysler is the
> largest stakeholder, and British Aerospace is also larger than the
> French Government.

This was my point... Airbus is an international undertaking,
put together from several companies on an initiative of
governments. The largest stake was held for a very long time
by the British Aerospace, followed by the German MBB, which
became later a part of Daimler-Benz (Dornier was also a part
of the conglomerate for a while.)

And since Daimler-Benz and Chrysler became one, they are now
the largest shareholder. And so Airbus is also... American
if you would apply this logic. I wonder what share of
British Aerospace is owned by the British government?

Last but not least: Government, or the ruling family of
Kuwait was the largest shareholder of Daimler-Benz!

Anyway, for historic reasons none of the European countries
was able to compete against US manufacturers on their own.
And so France, England and Germany put their efforts
together to create the Airbus company.

Thus, Airbus is not to be simply called "French" :-)

Thomas

[Gerry]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:14:52 GMT, tony roberts >
wrote:

>>Why can't the French dump fuel?
>
>Because they are only allowed to dump carburant.
>
>HTH
>Tony

This is a test of my new signature.

Thanks,



lovetwinprops

--
__|__
*---o--(_)--o---*


lovetwinprops ATTT yahoo DOTTT com

[Gerry]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:45:17 -0700, Gerry
> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:14:52 GMT, tony roberts >
>wrote:
>
>>>Why can't the French dump fuel?
>>
>>Because they are only allowed to dump carburant.
>>
>>HTH
>>Tony
>
>This is a test of my new signature.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>lovetwinprops

Why isn't the signature included?



LoveTwinProps

--
__|__
*---o--(_)--o---*


lovetwinprops ATTT yahoo DOTTT com

[Gerry]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:14:52 GMT, tony roberts >
wrote:

>

Reply.



LoveTwinProps

--
__|__
*---o--(_)--o---*


lovetwinprops ATTT yahoo DOTTT com

[Gerry]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:45:17 -0700, Gerry
> wrote:

>

Trying again.



LoveTwinProps

--
__|__
*---o--(_)--o---*


lovetwinprops ATTT yahoo DOTTT com

[Steve]

Ever heard of alt.test? That is what it is for.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:00:40 -0700, Gerry > wrote in
>:

>>This is a test of my new signature.

>>Thanks,

>>lovetwinprops

>Why isn't the signature included?

You are using a smart newsreader that trims the
other person's signature.

In the case, the OP is you, but your newsreader
doesn't know that.

If you want to include someone's signature in a
reply, you can mark it and copy it before you
press the reply button, then paste it into
the new message.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Gerry wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:14:52 GMT, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>
>
> Reply.
>
>
>
> LoveTwinProps
>
> --
> __|__
> *---o--(_)--o---*
>
>
> lovetwinprops ATTT yahoo DOTTT com

Your sig is there...

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Gerry schrieb:

>
> --
>


btw, the correct delimter is "-- " (dash dash space).

__|__
> *---o--(_)--o---*
>
>
> lovetwinprops ATTT yahoo DOTTT com

... and then followed by a maximum of 4 lines.

#m

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Bob Noel schrieb:
> Your sig is there...

Or maybe it is here. :-))

Bob, how is the usenet access doing? Everything OK?

#m

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Bob Noel schrieb:
>> Your sig is there...
>
> Or maybe it is here. :-))
>
> Bob, how is the usenet access doing? Everything OK?
>
> #m
>
>
The access is fine.

Thank you again

[Dan[_10_]]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:24:00 -0700, Steve wrote:

> Ever heard of alt.test? That is what it is for.

Ever here of alt.jumpoffa****ingcliff?
--
Wanna **** with me? Show your **** at *MY* newsgroup.
rec.aviation.piloting

[Steve]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...

> Ever here of alt.jumpoffa****ingcliff?
> --
> Wanna **** with me? Show your **** at *MY* newsgroup.
> rec.aviation.piloting

With someone that has such an awesome command of the English language and
spelling capabilities? I think not.