BlueFlyer From Tuvalu, joined Jan 2006, 4942 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4578 times:
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]
When we unleash the dogs of war we must go where they take us
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.
Speedbird128 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3515 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.
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 6057 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3279 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.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!