Airplane problem

AstroPax wrote:

A jetliner loaded with fuel can still land safety even if it is above
the max landing weight, however, it will probably sustain some damage
that will require lengthy repair. Certainly better to burn off the
gas and land at a desired weight.

I see. It's about weight, not about the potential for an explosion. I
was confused about that since a near-empty fuel tank is more likely to
explode than a full one.

Thanks for clearing that up.

//Walt

DZN wrote:
This may be a stupid question but, if they had to fly around to burn fuel
any way, why didn't they fly just fly to their destination (JFK) and do the
landing there?

Probably something to do with air traffic control, jurisdiction, and
responsibility for disabled plane that's still in the air. The problem
was discovered in LAX's territory and the LAX air controller staff
presumably can't just punt it over to another crew without some kind of
official handoff and a good reason for letting it go. If the plane were
to travel across the country it would have to be handed off many times
and spend a considerable amount of time outside of any local jurisdiction.

Better to keep it close, keep and eye on it, stay in constant
communitacion, and get it down safely. Which they did. Good job.


//Walt

Walt wrote:
DZN wrote:

This may be a stupid question but, if they had to fly around to burn
fuel any way, why didn't they fly just fly to their destination (JFK)
and do the landing there?


Probably something to do with air traffic control, jurisdiction, and
responsibility for disabled plane that's still in the air. The problem
was discovered in LAX's territory and the LAX air controller staff
presumably can't just punt it over to another crew without some kind of
official handoff and a good reason for letting it go. If the plane were
to travel across the country it would have to be handed off many times
and spend a considerable amount of time outside of any local jurisdiction.

Better to keep it close, keep and eye on it, stay in constant
communitacion, and get it down safely. Which they did. Good job.

Also, I doubt they could have made it with he gear down. Uses way more fuel.

-klaus

The Real Bev wrote:
Film at 11.

Again at 11:10, 11:20, 11:30, 11:40.........

I think I saw that landing about 300 times last nite.

Sam "Should be less than a month to ski season" Seiber

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:12:08 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

Los Angeles is famous for its televised car chases, but today we have
something different. A Jet Blue plane took off from Long Beach for JFK and
the nosewheel got stuck down with the tires pointing sideways. They turned
the plane around to head out over the ocean to dump fuel, but it turns out
that you can't dump the fuel from this kind of plane. So the thing is flying
back and forth back and forth to Catalina until they've burned enough fuel to
try a landing at LAX.

I just woke up for it half an hour ago. Listening to the commentators is just
like listening to the commentators for car chases or the Rose Parade. You'd
think they could give a prediction about when it's going to come down. It's
not like this is new technology or anything.

I wonder when they'll pass out free drinks to the passengers. They hope that
the wheels will straighten out when it lands...

It's a shame they made such a big deal out of this. It was nice to see
it turn out textbook though.

I grew up in the general aviation community (father is a FBO at a
local 'reliever' field) and have seen many bellied small aircraft.
Most say its seems like the smoothest landing ever, till that last
split-second realization that the airplane is lower than normal and
ground contact has yet to occur. If one of the mains is not down and
locked, then you have the trickier decision of landing gear-up versus
partially down. The former is generally the safer play.

I fully realize that it gets a bit more interesting in larger iron,
but still not likely to be outside of what they trained for.

Sounds like they did everything pretty much by the book; burn off
extra fuel, pick a nice long runway with an easy approach, set it down
gently, keep off of the main brakes (which tends to bring the front,
main to the tarmac quicker), hold the nose off as long a possible, and
let it coast to a stop. Other than obviously needing a new nose gear
and check of the actuators/hydraulic system, there was no major
damage.

DLGlos

In message , DLGlos
writes

I wonder when they'll pass out free drinks to the passengers. They hope that
the wheels will straighten out when it lands...

It's a shame they made such a big deal out of this. It was nice to see
it turn out textbook though.


Apparently the passengers could watch the news coverage on those
seatback TV screens !

--
Sue ]8(

Seems like it was a hydraulic failure that somehow turned the wheel to
its extreme position, I had a car do that once with the power steering,
fortunately I was starting up from a total stop when the faailure
occurred.

H. R. (Bob) Hofmann

bdubya wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:12:08 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

Los Angeles is famous for its televised car chases, but today we have
something different. A Jet Blue plane took off from Long Beach for
JFK and the nosewheel got stuck down with the tires pointing
sideways. They turned the plane around to head out over the ocean
to dump fuel, but it turns out that you can't dump the fuel from
this kind of plane.

WHAAAT? Okay, I haven't googled this or anything, but.....WHAAAT?
What the hell kinda plane is it? I kinda figured that a "dump the
fuel" option would be sort of an essential safety feature on any
modern passenger plane. Guess not.

It was all over the news here, front page. And the passengers on the plane
were watching the whole thing live in their little TVs!


--
ant