Simviation Forum - man this one hurts

Aug 3^rd, 2004 at 8:32pm

jrpilot Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 2255

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/632272/L/

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Aug 3^rd, 2004 at 9:09pm

flyboy 28 Offline
Colonel
Jacksonville, FL

Posts: 13323

Ooof...

Man, those rookies... Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Aug 3^rd, 2004 at 9:16pm

chomp_rock Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender:
Posts: 2718

Geez, I wonder if the PIC lost his/her job, he or she no doubt caused more than a few thousand in damage.

AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Aug 3^rd, 2004 at 9:30pm

RichieB16 Offline
Colonel
January 27, 1967
Oregon

Gender:
Posts: 4408

Wow, I'll bet that made an interesting sound. Reminds me of the time I was on a school swimming trip and our bus driver bottomed the bus out and got it stuck-lol.

&&Check Out My 1969 & 1996 Camaro's&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Aug 3^rd, 2004 at 10:51pm

X56SB Offline
Colonel
im steelx

Posts: 785

now thats a butt first landing Grin

C-17&&&&http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y50/X56SB/c-17.jpg

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Aug 4^th, 2004 at 8:53am

Exploder Ex Member

Quote:

Geez, I wonder if the PIC lost his/her job, he or she no doubt caused more than a few thousand in damage.

Not to forget the environmental damage he did because of dumping fuel over the black forest... Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Aug 4^th, 2004 at 9:13am

chomp_rock Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender:
Posts: 2718

Quote:

Not to forget the environmental damage he did because of dumping fuel over the black forest... Roll Eyes

I'll bet it wasn't that bad.

AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Aug 4^th, 2004 at 9:40am

Exploder Ex Member

Not as bad as damaging an aircraft,huh? Roll Eyes

They had to dump serveral tons of fuel.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Aug 4^th, 2004 at 7:18pm

alrot Offline
Colonel
Freeware Designers Above
All..

Posts: 10231

I wonder if they where passeges and what they would feel

Venezuela

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Aug 4^th, 2004 at 8:13pm

chomp_rock Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender:
Posts: 2718

Quote:

Not as bad as damaging an aircraft,huh? Roll Eyes

They had to dump serveral tons of fuel.

No, the environment is much more important than an aircraft, but most of the fuel probably evaporated before hitting the ground so it probably did not damage the forest that badly.

AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 8:12am

Exploder Ex Member

And what about the atmosphere? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 8:17am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

wouldnt be much worse than the jet exhaust from it anyway. Now if we were talking about this happening all the time then there would be an enviromental problem. Doubt the PIC would have have been fired for this, it happens maybe a reprimand. Then again i dont know company policy in this case so i could be wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 12:18pm

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

Talk about an expensive, simple mistake... Beyond the obvious damage to the aircraft and environment, consider the cost of all the fuel he dumped, and the cost of moving all those passengers to a new flight. Good thing they have insurance I guess. Shouldn't there be a quicker way to dump fuel in an emergency like this? 40 minutes seems like a long time to fly around, dumping fuel, wondering if your tail is about to fall off...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 3:50pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

I have to agree with Exploder on this one. Some years ago an airliner dumped fuel on a field in the Gatwick area by mistake. The captain was reprimanded but nothing has grown in that field ever since.

It's obviously necessary in an emergency but there's really nowhere you can dump that amount of fuel safely without affecting the environment in some way. If it goes in the sea, which is the usual "dumping ground" around here, it affects everything living there, maybe for many years afterwards. We're gradually polluting the food we depend on to survive. I don't know the answer.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 4:03pm

RichieB16 Offline
Colonel
January 27, 1967
Oregon

Gender:
Posts: 4408

Just out of curosity, is dumping the fuel in this cases like this done to help minimize the risk of fire in the event of a crash (since the damage to the plane is unknown) or is it standard for all early "emergency type" landings due to weight and aircraft balance?

&&Check Out My 1969 & 1996 Camaro's&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 4:08pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

I think it's done purely to lighten the aircraft Richie. This one would have been carrying the maximum amount of fuel as it had just taken off. Empty tanks are more of a fire risk than full ones.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 4:11pm

RichieB16 Offline
Colonel
January 27, 1967
Oregon

Gender:
Posts: 4408

Quote:

I think it's done purely to lighten the aircraft Richie. This one would have been carrying the maximum amount of fuel as it had just taken off. Empty tanks are more of a fire risk than full ones.

Thanks Hagar. That makes sense, since an empty tank would have more fumes (which is the most dangerous-at least with car gas, I assume aircraft fuel is the same situation). I thought it had to do with weight reduction since they seem to do it when the aircraft isn't damaged as well.

&&Check Out My 1969 & 1996 Camaro's&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 8:03am

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

The max takeoff weight for an airliner is higher than the max landing weight. If he tried to land with full tanks, the landing gear might snap off. The weight of the aircraft also adds to the length needed to stop safely. If the plane weights too much, it might skid right off the end of the runway. I'm sure the possibility of a crash landing was also on their mind when dumping the highly flamable jet fuel.

About the environmental hazard; what if the aircraft was designed to jettisoned the entire enclosed fuel tanks? Not only would the environment be spared, but the tank could probably be recovered and the fuel saved.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 8:20am

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Most airliners can land overweight, however extra safety inspections are needed before they can be put into service again. That being said, it's not a guarantee that the aircraft wont sustain any damage, but they are very well capable of landing at weights above the Max landing weight. But I'm not sure how well an A340 can take a close to a MTOW landing, probably not too good I guess ???

The 737 does not have any fuel jettison valves, and it can land at close to MTOW without any problems, though the MTOW and MLW does not differ that much Grin

The idea of jettison the entire tank is an interesting one, but it will be hard to do because of aerodynamical reasons. How can you lose huge wingtanks witout affecting the wings lifting ability. Also leaving a gaping hole in the wing would jeopardize the entire wingconstruction. But if it can be done, I think it's a marvelous idea.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 8:48am

chomp_rock Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender:
Posts: 2718

What I'm trying to convey is that the environmental damage that this accident caused is probably a lot less worse than the damage done every day by the vast number of SUVs on the road. I'm an environmentalist so as expected I really hate SUVs, especially those that are very large and ineffiecient like the Hummer.

« Last Edit: Aug 6^th, 2004 at 11:12am by chomp_rock »

AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 9:10am

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Quote:

What I'm trying to convey is that the environmental damage that this accident caused is probably a lot less wors than the damage done every day by the vast number of SUVs on the road. I'm an environmentalist so as expected I really hate SUVs, especially those that are very large and ineffiecient like the Hummer.

I agree...why does Americans insist to drive pickup trucks and large SUV's that burns more fuel than a 737 on takeoff? but in the US, Bigger is better eh? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 11:09am

jrpilot Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 2255

Quote:

I agree...why does Americans insist to drive pickup trucks and large SUV's that burns more fuel than a 737 on takeoff? but in the US, Bigger is better eh? Grin

Over here you get many Americans wanting the biggest ALWAYS...and not in that way Shocked

.....and with that you get way more accidents..and when snow comes...in the parts it does people cry becasue they don't want to use there $50,000 USD vechile to go over fresh packed 2 inches of snow...omg and when it comes to flying forget it, all though we ae picking up the slack from 9/11 there are still people who are affraid to fly I can see this to a point..but me I have no problem...the thing is it has been a few years now...and to think of it I really don't know of many terrorist attacks...aviation wise...in the US and throughout Europe...hmmm....I may have went just a tad of topic but....

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 4:14pm

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

Quote:

The idea of jettison the entire tank is an interesting one, but it will be hard to do because of aerodynamical reasons. How can you lose huge wingtanks witout affecting the wings lifting ability. Also leaving a gaping hole in the wing would jeopardize the entire wingconstruction. But if it can be done, I think it's a marvelous idea.

I was thinking more of a "bomb bay" design where the fuselage would open, jettison the tank, then close and the plane can land using fuel from wing tanks. Either way, probably will never happen

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: