Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > US airliner in trouble over LA

US airliner in trouble over LA (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:47 AM
 
You're right the pilot didn't have any special skills or do anything special at all.

The thing that could have been interesting about the story is if the front wheels collapsed slamming the nose down and making one hell of a spark show.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Macpilot
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:52 AM
 
Actually the crews do have special skills, since they are trained and certified and tested. This is why the passengers don't land the plane. But there is a clear difference between an extraordinary superhuman, heroic act that only a cartoon character could pull off, and the combination of good weather, a clean runway, proper training and execution, and common sense.
MacBook Pro
Mac Mini
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Damn, glad they landed ok. Can you imagine how the passengers were shitting themselves for 3 hours?
I'd guess the passengers were completely calm because they weren't able to watch TV, where the news media successfully whipped up a frenzy over a simple malfunction. Oh wait, this was JetBlue. They do have live TV.

By the way, this was not extraordinary. It's happened to airplanes before. The nose strut hold just fine while about half of the nose wheel grind off. Also contrary to CNN's story, that was sparks coming off the nosewheel, not fire.

Finally, to confirm what has already been said, the A320 cannot dump fuel. Some Airbus' can. It depends upon the type.

Chris
     
villalobos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Damn, glad they landed ok. Can you imagine how the passengers were shitting themselves for 3 hours?
nm. scooped.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur
Airbus planes can't 'dump' fuel normally so they are actually burning it off. Thats why they have been up there so long. A fuel dump wouldn't have taken this long.
That is wrong. The A320 can't dump fuel, but the A330, A340 and A380 can for example.

The Boeing 737 (all generations) can't dump fuel either like the 320. This is because the 320 and 737 can land immediately after takeoff with MTOW but the heavies have to lighten themselves to preserve structural integrity at landing with MTOW.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Remarkable:

1) Remarkably smooth landing. Excellent result. Kudos to the crew, and it's great that everyone is safe.

2) Remarkably obnoxious thread posters, considering the emergency.
Yeah it was an amazing landing! Smooth and the front landing gear held! Damn fine piece of machinery and piloting. Thank God everyone walked away from this.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
agentz
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 07:45 AM
 
Great photo of the landing at http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L
MI5 doesn't do evil. Just treachery, treason and armageddon.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
That is wrong. The A320 can't dump fuel, but the A330, A340 and A380 can for example.

The Boeing 737 (all generations) can't dump fuel either like the 320. This is because the 320 and 737 can land immediately after takeoff with MTOW but the heavies have to lighten themselves to preserve structural integrity at landing with MTOW.

cheers

W-Y
MTOW = ??? for those among us who don't know airline-speak?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
wdlove
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 11:16 AM
 
Very happy that it all turned out safely. Kudos to the pilot.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macpilot
Actually the crews do have special skills, since they are trained and certified and tested.
Well obviously I mean skills outside of what you learn in flight school.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
MTOW = ??? for those among us who don't know airline-speak?
Maximum Take-Off Weight.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Maximum Take-Off Weight.
So, according to W-Y's post, certain Boeing and Airbus planes can land immediately--with a full tank, so to speak--in case of an emergency at or shortly after take-off.

From a design standpoint is there an advantage or a disadvantage to this ability for those planes that can't land with a full-tank (the heavies)? What do they gain in being able to dump fuel that a smaller plane doesn't gain?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
I'd guess the passengers were completely calm because they weren't able to watch TV, where the news media successfully whipped up a frenzy over a simple malfunction. Oh wait, this was JetBlue. They do have live TV.Chris
Yup
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/22/air....ap/index.html

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 12:22 PM
 
The larger planes can take off heavier than they can land.
They burn fuel enroute and achieve their landing weight.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
From a design standpoint is there an advantage or a disadvantage to this ability for those planes that can't land with a full-tank (the heavies)? What do they gain in being able to dump fuel that a smaller plane doesn't gain?
The gain is not achieved by dumping fuel. The gain is achieved because if all airplanes were designed to be able to land at their maximum takeoff weight, the structure would have to be much stronger, thus heavier. Weight is the enemy of airplane designers. So because some airplanes can't land at their takeoff weight, designers add the ability to lighten the airplane quickly by dumping fuel.

Chris
     
paul w
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vente: Achat
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 12:44 PM
 
It would seem to me that not being able to dump fuel would be a bit risky for those larger planes, should something occur that made it necessary to land immediately. Why would a plane that couldn't land on its takeoff weight not be engineered to dump fuel?

edit: nevermind (stating the obvious)
     
exca1ibur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:17 PM
 
The point of dumping fuel is that when you get to a certain load the fuel can change the CG of the plane. When totally full the planes CG is to the rear, as it burns fuel it moves towards the rear center then towards the rear again. The reason HE burned off fuel was to get the fuel CG to move to the rear of the plane so it would be as tail heavy as possible to keep the nose up as long as possible during the flare on landing. No being able to dump at all is beyond me on that call. Logically you should NOT want to emergency land with a full tank. All planes should be able to dump in an emergency situation for this reason and to lessen the chance of a fire.
( Last edited by exca1ibur; Sep 22, 2005 at 02:32 PM. )
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur
Logically you should want to emergency land with a full tank. All planes should be able to dump in an emergency situation for this reason and to lessen the chance of a fire.
Missing a word or something in the first sentence?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
exca1ibur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Missing a word or something in the first sentence?
Yeah, my fault. 'NOT' being that word. Thanks for the correction.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
MTOW = ??? for those among us who don't know airline-speak?
I'm sorry

It means Maximum Take-Off Weight, or the weight the airframe is capable of lifting into the air given structure and engine power.

Basically the heaviest a plane can be while being able to become airborne.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
The gain is not achieved by dumping fuel. The gain is achieved because if all airplanes were designed to be able to land at their maximum takeoff weight, the structure would have to be much stronger, thus heavier. Weight is the enemy of airplane designers. So because some airplanes can't land at their takeoff weight, designers add the ability to lighten the airplane quickly by dumping fuel.

Chris
This is very true. Thank you for the articulate explaination chabig.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 04:23 PM
 
Nice landing indeed!

Footage.

The passengers on board watched their own plane land on the in-flight TV screens.
     
paul w
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vente: Achat
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 04:35 PM
 
^^^ not if they had their head between their legs (kissing their asses goodbye). Excellent clip though.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur
The point of dumping fuel is that when you get to a certain load the fuel can change the CG of the plane. When totally full the planes CG is to the rear, as it burns fuel it moves towards the rear center then towards the rear again. The reason HE burned off fuel was to get the fuel CG to move to the rear of the plane so it would be as tail heavy as possible to keep the nose up as long as possible during the flare on landing. No being able to dump at all is beyond me on that call. Logically you should NOT want to emergency land with a full tank. All planes should be able to dump in an emergency situation for this reason and to lessen the chance of a fire.
Speaking generally, the CG (center of gravity) on most transports starts forward and moves aft as fuel is burned. Some of the larger airplanes can control their CG in flight by transferring fuel to and from tanks in the tail of the airplane.

About the A320, specifically, the CG always moves aft as fuel is burned.

Burning fuel is not about CG control. It's much simpler than that. We just don't want all that flammable liquid on board when landing in this condition. Plus, landing speeds are slower when the airplane is lighter. This makes stopping easier and in this case, there will be less grinding of the nosewheels.

Chris
     
BlueSky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ------>
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macpilot

The Captain, not the "pilot",...

There is another "pilot". He/She is the First Officer.


...where the plane breaks apart and the whole enchilada catches on fire.
So the "pilot" is not a pilot but a "Captain", the "other pilot" is not a pilot but a "First Officer", and the aircraft is not an aircraft, but an "enchilada".

OK. I think I'm beginning to catch on.

     
paul w
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vente: Achat
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 06:26 PM
 
Roger, Roger, what's our vector, Victor?
     
exca1ibur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
Speaking generally, the CG (center of gravity) on most transports starts forward and moves aft as fuel is burned. Some of the larger airplanes can control their CG in flight by transferring fuel to and from tanks in the tail of the airplane.

About the A320, specifically, the CG always moves aft as fuel is burned.

Burning fuel is not about CG control. It's much simpler than that. We just don't want all that flammable liquid on board when landing in this condition. Plus, landing speeds are slower when the airplane is lighter. This makes stopping easier and in this case, there will be less grinding of the nosewheels.

Chris
The larger planes is mostly what I was referring to, as those are what I normally work with. Haven't worked on an A320 personally. Mostly 767, 757, and formally MD-80s and 727s. For a 767 the trim for fuel starts forward till about 15K then starts to move back till about 35K then moves forward again till top off.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur
The larger planes is mostly what I was referring to, as those are what I normally work with. Haven't worked on an A320 personally. Mostly 767, 757, and formally MD-80s and 727s. For a 767 the trim for fuel starts forward till about 15K then starts to move back till about 35K then moves forward again till top off.
I'll go with your statement, because I have no personal knowledge of the 757/767s. On the 727, I believe the CG might have moved this way because of the order in which fuel was burned. We always fed all three engines from the center tank until it equaled the wings. Then we fed tank to engine. On the twins, we always feed from the center until it's empty, then we feed tank to engine. That might account for the difference.

Chris
     
exca1ibur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2005, 09:21 PM
 
True. I miss working with the 727. Was a nice plane, just heavy in the ass, an LOUD!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,