Why can't the French dump fuel?

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

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.a...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/colum...6-column_x.htm

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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.

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

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