[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

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.

[Macpilot]

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.

[chabig]

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]

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]

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

[Weyland-Yutani]

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

[agentz]

Great photo of the landing at http://www.airliners.net/open.file/926274/L

[dcmacdaddy]

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?

[wdlove]

Very happy that it all turned out safely. Kudos to the pilot.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

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.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

MTOW = ??? for those among us who don't know airline-speak?

Maximum Take-Off Weight.

[dcmacdaddy]

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?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

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

[Sky Captain]

The larger planes can take off heavier than they can land.
They burn fuel enroute and achieve their landing weight.

[chabig]

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]

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]

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.

[von Wrangell]

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?

[exca1ibur]

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]

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

[Weyland-Yutani]

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

[lil'babykitten]

Nice landing indeed!

Footage.

The passengers on board watched their own plane land on the in-flight TV screens.

[paul w]

^^^ not if they had their head between their legs (kissing their asses goodbye). Excellent clip though.

[chabig]

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]

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]

Roger, Roger, what's our vector, Victor?

[exca1ibur]

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]

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]

True. I miss working with the 727. Was a nice plane, just heavy in the ass, an LOUD!