Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KAC102 Back To JFK. Anyone Know Why?  
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3971 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3676 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Friend of mine was on KAC102 tonight and I see the plane returned to JFK 15 minutes into the flight. Whatever problem it had must have occurred immediately after take-off because it barely crossed Long Island Sound before making a 180.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/KAC102

[Edited 2008-11-22 19:44:49]


I've got $h*t to do
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Better link:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/K...2/history/20081123/0211Z/KJFK/EGLL


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

interesting flight pattern they did there.....

I have no idea what happened, but what I found interesting - why do they stop in LHR? Surely, the A343 could make JFK-KWI non-stop, no?



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3514 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 2):
interesting flight pattern they did there.....

To dump fuel I'm sure.



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineKL642 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

The pilot told the guy in the JFK tower just before landing that he had 54,000ils of fuel on board.

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12436 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3389 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 2):
interesting flight pattern they did there.....

I have no idea what happened, but what I found interesting - why do they stop in LHR? Surely, the A343 could make JFK-KWI non-stop, no?

They have some nonstops from JFK to/from KWI and three via LHR; if they have rights on that route, they might as well use them. They have been doing so for many, many years. I took KU 102 (with my mother and brother) back in March '81, when KU was flying 747s.

Quoting KL642 (Reply 4):
54,000ils

Is that kgs or litres? (I presume the former).


User currently offlineKL642 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Sorry, it was pounds. I guess the percocet I took last night kicked in while I was typing!

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3088 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 3):
To dump fuel I'm sure

I don't think you'd dump fuel that low.. he was only at 9000ft... and that close to land.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3050 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
I don't think you'd dump fuel that low.. he was only at 9000ft... and that close to land.


She landed with 54000 lbs of fuel? Hmm is that normal?



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineAustrianSimon From Austria, joined May 2008, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Reason for the return:

http://avherald.com/h?article=41097d4d

Servus, Simon


User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2910 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
I don't think you'd dump fuel that low.. he was only at 9000ft... and that close to land.

Fuel dump she did, because you don't want to(can't) land with the extra weight. I was sure thts what all the laps over the ocean were for Wink



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

I just commented that looked very low to dump fuel and he was very close to land.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2739 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 11):
I just commented that looked very low to dump fuel and he was very close to land.

I think that was a fair comment given the situation. Pilots usually like to dump fuel much further away from shore to limit the environmental impact (on the shore) - maybe the winds were favorable??

I guess it couldn't have landed easily with all of that fuel. What a waste of JetA!

Glad they made it down safely. Sounds like the pilots handled the situation per the book!



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2613 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
I don't think you'd dump fuel that low.. he was only at 9000ft... and that close to land.

Anything above 7000 will ensure evaporation prior to reaching the surface.

No air traffic should be allowed within 50nm of the rear (and 15nm either side of flight path) of the fuel dumping aircraft. (Those are the rules I use in ZA)

If it's an emergency I expect them to jettison the fuel ASAP regardless, or accept the associated risks of an overweight landing if the circumstances are so dire they can't afford the time fuel dumping will take.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Isn't it true that an aircraft *CAN* (not that it's desirable, and i imagine there'd be a fair amount of gear damage) land right up to MTOW?

-A



What now?
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4930 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2377 times:



Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 14):
Isn't it true that an aircraft *CAN* (not that it's desirable, and i imagine there'd be a fair amount of gear damage) land right up to MTOW?

Yes that is true.

Also, it is not at all uncommon for an aircraft to be built without fuel dumping capabilities, even though MTOW may be much higher than MLW. An "Overweight landing" procedure must be followed, and Maintenance must perform an "Overweight Inspection" on landing.

While you mention gear (structure) issues, and yes that is a consideration, one of the biggest concerns with an "overweight" landing are performance issues. ie. Runway length or go-around capabilities in high terrain areas.

But when time is an issue, for example an uncontrollable fire, the aircraft can be landed right up to MTOW.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WestJet 9001 Returned To PAE - Anyone Know Why? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 22:40:11 by Clickhappy
United 33 Returning To SFO, Anyone Know Why? posted Wed Jul 13 2005 21:10:42 by AS739X
Anyone Know Why DL 777 N865DA Came To ANC Today? posted Sat Sep 22 2007 06:56:29 by AA737-823
AA14 To LAX Cancelled - Anyone Know Why posted Wed Dec 28 2005 19:17:23 by Clickhappy
Anyone Know Why This UA744 Is At JFK? posted Sat Jul 24 2004 06:52:54 by H. Simpson
AA 1562 MIA-YYZ Cancelled On 6/16, Anyone Know Why posted Mon Jun 16 2008 20:05:31 by StarAC17
Anyone Know Why United Was At Kdhl? posted Sun Apr 27 2008 19:45:18 by N68TLCaptain
SQ A380 Grubby Stripes - Anyone Know Why? posted Sun Jan 27 2008 11:52:16 by CHRISBA777ER
USAirways 922 Delayed Today Anyone Know Why? posted Sat Nov 10 2007 16:47:53 by B727
UAL 747-400 Was At EWR Tonight - Anyone Know Why? posted Thu Oct 25 2007 21:34:10 by GoBoeing