Why can't the French dump fuel?

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

Because they are French.

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:

http://www.reports.eads.net/2004/ar_...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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

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/
-

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