Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Dumping  
User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7632 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5352 times:


I know that fuel is dumped in an emergency.

Someone I know in Stevenage reckons that aircraft flying into Luton routinely
arrive with excess fuel and simply dump it.

I find this hard to credit financially or environmentally.

Any info or comments welcome.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5327 times:

>>>Someone I know in Stevenage reckons that aircraft flying into Luton routinely arrive with excess fuel and simply dump it.

Given that most aircraft don't even have a fuel dump system installed to begin with, I agree with your doubts...  Big grin

This subject has been covered extensively in the past; you might want to try a search to get more-detailed information from past threads...


User currently offlineAir2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5275 times:

Oh yeah, fuel is so cheap that carriers just load extra to dump.

Let's think a little here, people.


User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5234 times:

Load of rubbish, and for the record fuel is not necessarily dumped even in an emergency, as OPNLguy stated most aircraft can't do it anyway and those which can (and have the option installed) will not waste time dumping fuel in a serious emergency, they are able to land up to MTOW in this case.


I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineVneplus5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

I think that wingtip/flap vortecies are the main origin of this myth, and it's often told by people who don't know about aircraft in that much depth (I am not being a snob or anything, just recognising that some 'enthusiasts' don't have a lot of technical knowledge).

I've heard it many times before too...


User currently offlineLimaFoxTango From Antigua and Barbuda, joined Jun 2004, 789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

As Vneplus5 said, someone not too educated in aviation looking at the photos below would probably think that fuel is being dumped from the wings.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Micheil Keegan



It's just condensation!!



You are said to be a good pilot when your take-off's equal your landings.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5166 times:

I was deadheading into SFO one humid morning and we were pulling these vortices off the ends of both flaps. Some little kid behind me asked what it was and his dad told him the pilots were "dumping fuel so they could land."

Common misconception. Right up there with the people who slept through middle school science and think the plane is on fire when the air conditioning vents are blowing fog into the cabin.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

>>>Common misconception. Right up there with the people who slept through middle school science and think the plane is on fire when the air conditioning vents are blowing fog into the cabin.

...or the folks who believe that aircraft routinely dump the content of the lavs while on short final, or another time during the flight...

[Edited 2004-12-10 02:13:02]

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5099 times:

With the cost of ATF as it exists,No Airline unless in an emergency will want to dump fuel unnecessary.Thats where Flight planning is so important.
Speaking about Vortices mistaken for Fuel Dumping in progress....Thats a very common problem.People dont realise that Some Aircraft dont have a Fuel Dump system installed in the First place.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5072 times:

Does anybody actually have any good photos of fuel dumping.

Like the one of a CX A346, but i can not find itb in the database

airbusA346  Smile

[Edited 2004-12-10 19:45:43]


Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

AirbusA346 check the "chemtrails" sites. They just might have.  Smile


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5057 times:

Thanks SlamClick, but what is the URL for the website

airbusA346  Smile



Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5051 times:

Don't know. Don't normally bookmark BS, but try googling it. There are many of them.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Any aircraft that weighs more at takeoff than it's permissible landing weight by FAA FAR must have a fuel dump system. The fuel you see sometime coming from the vents on the wingtips are coming from the surge tanks that deal with fuel expansion during temperature change or defective automatic fuel tank shut offs. On Boeings I have worked on if fuel was found in a surge it was to be drained completely before flight. If it seems a endless supply of fuel is in the surge tank you have a plumbing problem some where and need to have it repaired.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4946 times:

>>>Any aircraft that weighs more at takeoff than it's permissible landing weight by FAA FAR must have a fuel dump system.

Can I ask where you came up with this, or cite the FAR? Our 737-700s can (and often do) takeoff at the max 153,000 lbs, with a max landing weight of 128,000 lbs, and I can assure you that they don't have a fuel dump system involved.

The FAR -used- to say that if an aircraft's max takeoff weight exceeded it's max landing weight by more than 105%, then you had to have a fuel dump system. That explains why the 727 had one, and the then-new 737-100 and DC-9-10 didn't. That 105% figure was later dropped (as 737/DC-9 families were stretched starting in the mid-late 1960s, IIRC.



User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17054 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

I was deadheading into SFO one humid morning and we were pulling these vortices off the ends of both flaps. Some little kid behind me asked what it was and his dad told him the pilots were "dumping fuel so they could land."


Did you resist the temptation to correct him?  Big grin Hearing that would have killed me.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4908 times:

It's not true that a fuel jettison system is required if takeoff weight exceeds max. landing weight. FAR 25.1001 says a jettison system is required if the climb requirements of 25.119 (Landing Climb) and 25.121(d) (Approach Climb) can be met assuming a 15 min. flight.

Since most twins can meet these requirements, many twins do not have fuel jettison systems. Long range twins do tend to have them due in part to practical operational matters such is the desirability of reducing landing weight quickly if you need to land soon after takeoff.

Quads have difficulty meeting 25.119 near MTOW, so most Quads have jettison systems.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4908 times:

Big misconception there Venus6971.

ALL airliners take off at weights far greater than their allowable landing weights. Only time it is not true is on a very short flight with extremely light loads.

Airliners are certificated under FAR Part 25. If you have a copy, check out 25.1001 which will refer you to 25.119 and 25.121(d)

Those are the rules. The upshot of the whole thing is that very few two-engine jetliners have fuel dumping. The A-330 has it as an option and there is a thread here about that. Fuel dumping capability is more common on three and four-engine planes.

Welcome to Tech/Ops



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4874 times:

To oldaeroguy, OPNLguy and SlamClick I stand corrected, my experience is with 4 to 8 engine Boeings never working anything smaller than a 707. My AMT FAR book does not have FAR 25 in it but I will take your word for it. Darn it, I learned something today.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

Not a prob...

Back in the 1960s when Boeing was growing the 737-100 into the 737-200, and Douglas was growing the DC-9-10 into its various versions (all with increasingly powerful variants of the JT8D), the spreads between max structural takeoff weights and max structural landings grew to the point where the 105% rule would be busted.

Naturally, they just changed the rule...  Big grin


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

Rather like the problem of growing the 747 and having difficulty placing emergency exits. Piece of cake, we'll just make a couple of them wider and, as if by magic, more people could exit in the same time. Voila! a new class of emergency exit.

If your pants are on fire, perhaps you can exit faster.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Would carrying out Overweight Landing be a possibility on such Aircrafts [B737],if it exceeds the 105% limit.
Understandable that the situation would decide it.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4750 times:

Landings at weights higher than 1.05*MLW are rather common for all air transport models, even those with fuel jettison systems, under emergency situations.

Most are returned to service after a structural (usually visual) inspection.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4734 times:

The "structural" maximum landing gross weight of a typical airliner may be exceeded all the time if permitted by the nation's government. Nations other than the USA may operate a 737 at higher landing weights. They may do this in part by requiring more frequent inspection of, and shorter replacement cycle for landing gear components. Peformance-limited safety considerations will also apply.

The weight limitations on airliners are normally the lowest of a long list of calculated weights. Exemptions can be granted, even in airline operations if "an equivalent level of safety" can be demonstrated.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4736 times:

FAA/Company requirements change as well...

We used to have a 1 per cent buffer on the 103,000 lb. MLW of our 737-200s, meaning you could land (at most) 1,030 lbs over that 103,000 lbs, but that disappeared, and 103,000 is a hard limit, emergencies excepted, of course...


25 JAM747 : What is landing climb and approach climb?
26 Mrocktor : Performance speak for a go-around with full landing flaps and all engines operative and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respecti
27 Post contains links and images OPNLguy : I see someone has dug up a REALLY old thread... More recently, someone just mentioned this link, which lists various Boeing and McD models and whether
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Dumping
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Dumping On Ground? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 16:35:46 by 2H4
330 Fuel Dumping? posted Fri Dec 10 2004 15:07:16 by Kindjordan
Fuel Dumping posted Thu Dec 9 2004 18:55:10 by BENNETT123
747 Fuel Dumping Question posted Thu Dec 2 2004 19:11:39 by Bruce
Eviromental Effects Of Inflight Fuel Dumping posted Sun Nov 2 2003 00:39:54 by RockyRacoon
Fuel Dumping posted Thu Jul 24 2003 19:06:53 by BigPhilNYC
Fuel Dumping Valve posted Sat Nov 9 2002 23:23:13 by Desertman
Fuel Dumping On A320 posted Fri Jun 29 2001 17:47:31 by Mb339
Fuel Dumping posted Mon May 7 2001 15:54:09 by Braniff747
Dumping Fuel posted Sun Mar 9 2003 16:36:17 by AMSMAN
Fuel Dumping On Ground? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 16:35:46 by 2H4
330 Fuel Dumping? posted Fri Dec 10 2004 15:07:16 by Kindjordan
Fuel Dumping posted Thu Dec 9 2004 18:55:10 by BENNETT123
747 Fuel Dumping Question posted Thu Dec 2 2004 19:11:39 by Bruce
Eviromental Effects Of Inflight Fuel Dumping posted Sun Nov 2 2003 00:39:54 by RockyRacoon
Fuel Dumping posted Thu Jul 24 2003 19:06:53 by BigPhilNYC
Fuel Dumping Valve posted Sat Nov 9 2002 23:23:13 by Desertman
Fuel Dumping On A320 posted Fri Jun 29 2001 17:47:31 by Mb339

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format