Why can't the French dump fuel?

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 a

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

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"

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.

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"

"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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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/N...dVOCTable3.pdf

"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.