|
Turkish circling for 7 hrs
1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 3356
THY 35 circled for 7 hrs after departing Istanbul for Montreal ... why didn't they just dump their fuel does anyone know? |
Wooo!
for ten characters |
Maybe no fuel dump capability?
|
|
interesting, i just somewhat assumed all aircraft of that size came automatically with fuel dump capabilities
|
Nope. What I suggest is you write to the airline and ask them to get their captain to provide you with a detailed explanation.........
|
That's a good idea, can you provide me with the details?
|
Advantage server
|
medical emergency
A 16-year-old passenger on our flight number TK35 to Montreal on 13 October 2017 got sick shortly after departure, as the health of our passengers is of the utmost importance we decided to return to Istanbul. The aircraft is now holding and burning fuel until it reaches a safe landing weight. Our team has been informed that the last health condition of our passenger is very good. We will change our crew and prepare our aircraft again for a new flight to Montreal. |
With a true medical emergency you wouldn’t hold burning fuel, you’d land overweight.
|
Originally Posted by B2N2
(Post 9924504)
With a true medical emergency you wouldn’t hold burning fuel, you’d land overweight.
|
Officer Kite - the regulations tell us that when the Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW), less the fuel necessary for a 15 minute flight (including takeoff, approach and landing at the departure airport) is more than the maximum go-around weight, a fuel jettisoning system must be available.
So its nothing to do with the size of the aircraft, it's to do with the aircraft's go-around performance at MTOW with an engine out. |
Yes the OEI(one engine inoperative) is for'the approach climb'
Landing Climb is AEO ( All engines operating) |
Originally Posted by mcdhu
(Post 9924671)
Officer Kite - the regulations tell us that when the Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW), less the fuel necessary for a 15 minute flight (including takeoff, approach and landing at the departure airport) is more than the maximum go-around weight, a fuel jettisoning system must be available.
So its nothing to do with the size of the aircraft, it's to do with the aircraft's go-around performance at MTOW with an engine out. As far as I can remember from my theory, a fuel jettison system must be provided for all aircraft where the MTOM significantly exceeds the MLM. This pretty much covers all widebody/long haul aircraft. Just seemed very bizarre to see it. I only passed my exam in this quite recently and EASA actually have a question specifically asking under what circumstances must a jettison system be provided ... what I've said above is the correct answer. What if it was something more serious and they couldn't circle for 7 hrs ... would they have risked structural failure? |
No idea what the rules currently demand but it appears from sources elsewhere that a fuel jettison system is/was a customer option on the type in question.
|
Originally Posted by Officer Kite
(Post 9924719)
What if it was something more serious and they couldn't circle for 7 hrs ... would they have risked structural failure? |
I believe that fuel dump systems are only required on 3 and 4 engine jet in order to be able to meet the double failure case...I may be wrong
|
Relevant PPruNe discussion from 2004: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/14348...fuel-dump.html
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.