Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
phugoid1982
Topic Author
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:22 pm

I was tracking B6 106 this morning after learning BQN and PSE re opened today and after checking the METARS assumed they were landing on 12. I've seen the approach many times where they fly over Guanica heading southeast due to terrain and then descend over the water then turn back northeast. However, today, it appeared they tracked further east and then headed southeast for about 20 nm then circled and flew northwest before aligning back on 12 and landing. I know stuff like this happens everyday and this is a non issue but I was curious if anyone could shed light on this. Here's the flightradar link.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 6#27452cbb
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7398
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:38 pm

Delaying vector for an airport reason—runway briefly closed, traffic ahead. Could be anything, including a aircraft problem.
 
phugoid1982
Topic Author
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:45 pm

Would you ever do this to burn a little more fuel if you're over MLW rather than dump fuel?
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:12 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:
Would you ever do this to burn a little more fuel if you're over MLW rather than dump fuel?

Don't forget that not all planes have fuel dumping capability. None of JetBlue's planes can dump fuel.
Captain Kevin
 
phugoid1982
Topic Author
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:42 pm

AirKevin wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:
Would you ever do this to burn a little more fuel if you're over MLW rather than dump fuel?

Don't forget that not all planes have fuel dumping capability. None of JetBlue's planes can dump fuel.


Yeah. I didn't think the E-190 had fuel dumping capability but didn't know about the 320s. I guess for narrow bodies the difference between MLW and MGTOW is a lot smaller so that negates the need for that capability unlike the heavies.
 
VMCA787
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:31 pm

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:05 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:

Yeah. I didn't think the E-190 had fuel dumping capability but didn't know about the 320s. I guess for narrow bodies the difference between MLW and MGTOW is a lot smaller so that negates the need for that capability unlike the heavies.


Of course, you realize transport category aircraft are certified to land at its MTOW in an Emergency? The simple fact is, if you are over your MLW you don't land. Even it's just a little, you need to land below MLW.
 
phugoid1982
Topic Author
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:28 pm

VMCA787 wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:

Yeah. I didn't think the E-190 had fuel dumping capability but didn't know about the 320s. I guess for narrow bodies the difference between MLW and MGTOW is a lot smaller so that negates the need for that capability unlike the heavies.


Of course, you realize transport category aircraft are certified to land at its MTOW in an Emergency? The simple fact is, if you are over your MLW you don't land. Even it's just a little, you need to land below MLW.


I meant that any aircraft having an MTOW near MLW would have an easier time burning enough fuel circling or whatever to get down to MLW. Unlike, say a wide body that experienced a mechanical problem at time at takeoff fully fuelled where getting back was time critical and you couldn't afford to spend the time burning fuel to get down to MLW
 
VMCA787
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:31 pm

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:24 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:

I meant that any aircraft having an MTOW near MLW would have an easier time burning enough fuel circling or whatever to get down to MLW. Unlike, say a wide body that experienced a mechanical problem at time at takeoff fully fuelled where getting back was time critical and you couldn't afford to spend the time burning fuel to get down to MLW


You are missing my point. A narrow-body or wide-body who has an emergency after takeoff at MTOW, has the ability to come right back and land without dumping. If the PIC declares an emergency, then he can violate the AFM by using his emergency authority and fill the paperwork in after he/she lands. They aren't going to spend time, neither category of aircraft burning off fuel to get below MLW!
 
Woodreau
Posts: 2054
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:53 pm

There is an overweight landing procedure that you follow if you have to land over structural MLW. There may be other factors that reduce your MLW below your structural MLW, but after an overweight landing, you just make a logbook entry and maintenance does their thing.
Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7398
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:39 pm

All Part 25 certified types have the ability, with appropriate margins, to safely landing at MTOGW minus a small burn-off at a 6 FPS sink rate touchdown. At MLW, the maximum sink rate is 10 FPS, hence the difference between the weights.
 
phugoid1982
Topic Author
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:48 pm

VMCA787 wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:

I meant that any aircraft having an MTOW near MLW would have an easier time burning enough fuel circling or whatever to get down to MLW. Unlike, say a wide body that experienced a mechanical problem at time at takeoff fully fuelled where getting back was time critical and you couldn't afford to spend the time burning fuel to get down to MLW


You are missing my point. A narrow-body or wide-body who has an emergency after takeoff at MTOW, has the ability to come right back and land without dumping. If the PIC declares an emergency, then he can violate the AFM by using his emergency authority and fill the paperwork in after he/she lands. They aren't going to spend time, neither category of aircraft burning off fuel to get below MLW!


I meant that a widebodied a/c needs a fuel dumping mechanism to jettison fuel weight quicker than an a/c whose MGTOW is closer to its MLW and can achieve it by circling. Either way I get the gist of what you're saying. Aside, what dictates MLW? Touchdown velocity and thus tire rotation speed?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7398
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:49 am

I posted it 10 FPS for MLW, 6 for MTOW.

On jettisoning, see FAA AC 25-7D, page 25-1, but here’s the brief overview. The requirement for dumping is can the plane after a MTOGW take-off, allowing for 15 minutes of fuel burn meet the approach and landing climb requirements.

Section 25.1001(a) prescribes the conditions governing the need for installation of fuel jettisoning systems; if an airplane can meet the climb requirements of §§ 25.119 and 25.121(d), at the weight existing after a 15-minute flight consisting of a maximum weight takeoff and immediate return landing, a fuel jettisoning system is not required. Credit is given for the actual or computed weight of fuel consumed in the 15-minute flight using the airplane configurations, power or thrust settings, and speeds appropriate to each flight segment.
 
phugoid1982
Topic Author
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:57 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I posted it 10 FPS for MLW, 6 for MTOW.

On jettisoning, see FAA AC 25-7D, page 25-1, but here’s the brief overview. The requirement for dumping is can the plane after a MTOGW take-off, allowing for 15 minutes of fuel burn meet the approach and landing climb requirements.

Section 25.1001(a) prescribes the conditions governing the need for installation of fuel jettisoning systems; if an airplane can meet the climb requirements of §§ 25.119 and 25.121(d), at the weight existing after a 15-minute flight consisting of a maximum weight takeoff and immediate return landing, a fuel jettisoning system is not required. Credit is given for the actual or computed weight of fuel consumed in the 15-minute flight using the airplane configurations, power or thrust settings, and speeds appropriate to each flight segment.



Thanks so much! The geek in me will read it to its entirety and in this pandemic world we live in, will keep me from drinking too much rum as I will be engaged
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20597
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Jetblue 106 to Ponce missed approach today?

Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:50 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:
VMCA787 wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:

I meant that any aircraft having an MTOW near MLW would have an easier time burning enough fuel circling or whatever to get down to MLW. Unlike, say a wide body that experienced a mechanical problem at time at takeoff fully fuelled where getting back was time critical and you couldn't afford to spend the time burning fuel to get down to MLW


You are missing my point. A narrow-body or wide-body who has an emergency after takeoff at MTOW, has the ability to come right back and land without dumping. If the PIC declares an emergency, then he can violate the AFM by using his emergency authority and fill the paperwork in after he/she lands. They aren't going to spend time, neither category of aircraft burning off fuel to get below MLW!


I meant that a widebodied a/c needs a fuel dumping mechanism to jettison fuel weight quicker than an a/c whose MGTOW is closer to its MLW and can achieve it by circling. Either way I get the gist of what you're saying. Aside, what dictates MLW? Touchdown velocity and thus tire rotation speed?


Plenty of widebodies have no fuel dumping capability. None of the A330s I've flown have it.

As mentioned above, if you need to land above MLW, you land. If you're on fire, you land. If you don't need to land immediately, you burn off fuel.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 28 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos