@Fratemate
How do you stand on the 757 having no fuel dumping facilities at all? That can take off way above its MLW and, shock, horror, it can land (in emergency) above its MLW. You'll be amazed to know this is the case for all modern airliners, so stop trying to have a dig at the Airbus
I’m amazed about your knowledge, thanks for sharing it. But I will always have a dig at Airbus, as I will at Man City and Schumi (might there be a pattern??).
Joke aside:
(My take:I would always prefer the aircraft that allowes me to land with lower weights in abnormal situations. It’s simply added safety and that’s something I like!)
When QF32 flew around for 2 3/4h, completing 52 ECAMs, but mainly to get down to a decent weight because it could not dump (technical), I asked why on earth would a crew fly around so long, with one donkey exploded, two others not reacting, the cg slowly moving out of green and to top it, a hole in the wing, the award giving Airbus communitiy told me that this was the best and safest option. No danger in staying up with that injured animal, it was way better to get the weight down in view of the abnormal conf landing in spe.
(My take: I would always prefer to get a wounded animal on ground asap, especially if the extent is not completely known and deteriorating.)
Now I learn that even without technical, the 380 can’t dump to MLW. Taking the above argument now, I then asked, if such a missing feature makes sense! But now suddenly there seems to be no problem with the heaviest airliner landing overweight with abnormal conf and hot brakes and melting fuses, all allowing a normal taxi to the gate and disembarkation.
I know, it’s Monday morning quarterbacking. But don’t we learn by doing this? Can’t we oppose a different strategy to what another crew chose, on a rumor forum? Can’t we question design without getting the groupies all upbeat?
Even if it concerns the wholy 380 and Airbus.
And finally, if we can’t keep up the teasing and getting the girls throw their handbags, where’s the fun on this site?