Aircraft (airliners) types that do not dump fuel?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to advise that of A300's in service only the B2 does not have fuel dump capability ( unlike the B4 it has no centre tank). Fuel dump only required if max landing weight is exceeded by MAUW , minus GA fuel ,'i think'!
[This message has been edited by ragspanner (edited 20 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by ragspanner (edited 20 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
longarm-The A330's in my company do not have fuel dumping capability, it is however mentioned in the manual as optional equipment (the little arrow with a star inside). Someone also told me that fueldumping hasn't been ordered by anybody since an overweight landing is not a "huge" problem.
If you have seen dumpvalves fitted in an A330 I would be interested to know what airline has these?
If you have seen dumpvalves fitted in an A330 I would be interested to know what airline has these?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gosh! That's a lot of discussion on a fairly straightforward thing.
The max. landing weight of an airplane is the max. wt. at which it can do series of landings (without any special inspections).
For an odd landing, the airplane may be permitted to land with a weight higher than the max. landing weight, up to the max. take off weight. Usually, penalties are imposed, like a max. rate of descent, or a max. gradient on touch down, followed by a 'heavy landing' inspection.(different from the 'hard landing' - that's what you and I do )
In case the airplane is permitted the overweight landing upto the max. take off weight, then there is no requirement to have a fuel dumping system. However, if the overweight landing is permitted to less than the max. allowable take off weight, then a fuel dumping system must be in place.
That is the reason why smaller versions of the same generic type may not have a fuel dumping system, whereas the heavier versions may have one installed.
I hope this satisfies all.
The max. landing weight of an airplane is the max. wt. at which it can do series of landings (without any special inspections).
For an odd landing, the airplane may be permitted to land with a weight higher than the max. landing weight, up to the max. take off weight. Usually, penalties are imposed, like a max. rate of descent, or a max. gradient on touch down, followed by a 'heavy landing' inspection.(different from the 'hard landing' - that's what you and I do )
In case the airplane is permitted the overweight landing upto the max. take off weight, then there is no requirement to have a fuel dumping system. However, if the overweight landing is permitted to less than the max. allowable take off weight, then a fuel dumping system must be in place.
That is the reason why smaller versions of the same generic type may not have a fuel dumping system, whereas the heavier versions may have one installed.
I hope this satisfies all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry but got lost with the "permitted" bit.
If you are going downhill then the weight is acedemic !!!
Some maintenance manuals have two inspection procedures for heavy landin or overweight landing. Bearing in mind a "bad" hard landing is more onerous than a "good" overweight one !!
If you are going downhill then the weight is acedemic !!!
Some maintenance manuals have two inspection procedures for heavy landin or overweight landing. Bearing in mind a "bad" hard landing is more onerous than a "good" overweight one !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
OLBA18,
If you have exceeded 360fpm at more than MLW the system will produce a "load report" automatically along with the post flight report. It also produces one for a heavy landing so if you bury one check the report. You can also call it up manually.
Dozy Bell,
Yes, I was aware of the 360fpm treshold, I guess what I should have said was "three hours of fuel to burn to avoid an overweight landing". We are only allowed to do one in an emergency situation so if you have an engine failure after take off then it's quite OK but if you have a minor failure that the company don't want you to take down route all you can do is burn it off. The other problem with no fuel dump is being forced into high speed, high energy landings with a nasty tech. problem such as shot hydraulics. A heavy 737 or A320/1 with little or no flaps and duff brakes takes a lot of stopping from 160kts.
If you have exceeded 360fpm at more than MLW the system will produce a "load report" automatically along with the post flight report. It also produces one for a heavy landing so if you bury one check the report. You can also call it up manually.
Dozy Bell,
Yes, I was aware of the 360fpm treshold, I guess what I should have said was "three hours of fuel to burn to avoid an overweight landing". We are only allowed to do one in an emergency situation so if you have an engine failure after take off then it's quite OK but if you have a minor failure that the company don't want you to take down route all you can do is burn it off. The other problem with no fuel dump is being forced into high speed, high energy landings with a nasty tech. problem such as shot hydraulics. A heavy 737 or A320/1 with little or no flaps and duff brakes takes a lot of stopping from 160kts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Glue ball,
As someone mentioned although a particular aircraft may have fuel dump some operators elected not to have it installed.
Fuel dump was basically a US system even back to DC4 and DC6 that had fuel dump.
Most UK manufactured aircraft did not have it and basically if you had to land in an emergency you probably didn't have time to dump fuel was their approach.
On aircraft like DC10 and L1011 the system was available but some UK operators didn't take it as it was another system to get certififed by the CAA and another system to maintain.
It would appear from the posts that Airbus (JAA ) do not have a physical requirement for the system and it is all hidden by the descent rate figures.
As someone mentioned although a particular aircraft may have fuel dump some operators elected not to have it installed.
Fuel dump was basically a US system even back to DC4 and DC6 that had fuel dump.
Most UK manufactured aircraft did not have it and basically if you had to land in an emergency you probably didn't have time to dump fuel was their approach.
On aircraft like DC10 and L1011 the system was available but some UK operators didn't take it as it was another system to get certififed by the CAA and another system to maintain.
It would appear from the posts that Airbus (JAA ) do not have a physical requirement for the system and it is all hidden by the descent rate figures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If I missed it somewhere, my apologies, but it seems that the structural implications of MLW have been overlooked - except by the inference contained in references to reduced vertical impact velocities.
It seems to me that if the operation is not faced with a significant emergency situation then one is obligated to dump/burn off to, or below, MLW. If this is not done the AFM limit is exceeded and that is a lawyer's goldmine in anyone's language.
The only exception to this would be if the AFM prescribes, or the relevant Regulator permits, circumstances where an overweight landing is acceptable for a planned operation.
It is useful to recall that the MLW is based on a number of design criteria, including structural, performance and handling matters.
Now I may be out of order here, as I don't have access to the referenced maintenance documents. However, unless the AFM permits planned overweight landings, I would be very surprised, indeed, if the MM "approves" such procedures. I would expect to see something along the lines of .. "if an overweight landing has been made, then, if such and such a weight or such and such an impact velocity, is exceeded, then certain things have to be done ..."
If the design is predicated on intentional landing at the MTOW, then the AFM would prescribe the MLW to be equal to the MTOW. For the life of me I can't bring to mind any reason why this would not be the case. Trimming the MTOW, on the other hand, has been done in the past to better match the DOCs (ATC charges and the like) to the operation.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 28 June 2001).]
It seems to me that if the operation is not faced with a significant emergency situation then one is obligated to dump/burn off to, or below, MLW. If this is not done the AFM limit is exceeded and that is a lawyer's goldmine in anyone's language.
The only exception to this would be if the AFM prescribes, or the relevant Regulator permits, circumstances where an overweight landing is acceptable for a planned operation.
It is useful to recall that the MLW is based on a number of design criteria, including structural, performance and handling matters.
Now I may be out of order here, as I don't have access to the referenced maintenance documents. However, unless the AFM permits planned overweight landings, I would be very surprised, indeed, if the MM "approves" such procedures. I would expect to see something along the lines of .. "if an overweight landing has been made, then, if such and such a weight or such and such an impact velocity, is exceeded, then certain things have to be done ..."
If the design is predicated on intentional landing at the MTOW, then the AFM would prescribe the MLW to be equal to the MTOW. For the life of me I can't bring to mind any reason why this would not be the case. Trimming the MTOW, on the other hand, has been done in the past to better match the DOCs (ATC charges and the like) to the operation.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anyone considered the fact that twin engine T category A/C must demonstrate the
capability to fly at MGW (AUW) on one engine?
I think you'll find that three and four engine A/C cannot maintain altitude with two
engines out at MGW, hence the necessity to
be able to dump fuel in such circumstances.
The point is moot in the case of a twin loosing both engines.
Cheer, EBD
capability to fly at MGW (AUW) on one engine?
I think you'll find that three and four engine A/C cannot maintain altitude with two
engines out at MGW, hence the necessity to
be able to dump fuel in such circumstances.
The point is moot in the case of a twin loosing both engines.
Cheer, EBD
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am convinced that MD11's may be able to dump fuel, but can any MD pilot perhaps confirm.
Regarding the A330 dumping capability (1 ton/min) - this particular one was the A330-200 and it seems like it is not standard on all fleets. Emirates operates a few of them and apparently with the dump capability. Don't know if that was a company specific request for the option as they operate out of Dubai where temps are very high and pressures are low in summer. On some of the runways overhere, due to obstacles in the climb out, certain types of aircraft have up to an eight ton fuel penalty if they have to depart from a particular runway and therefore these guys would always request the opposite end for departure if traffic and wx permits.
Cheers
Fart
Regarding the A330 dumping capability (1 ton/min) - this particular one was the A330-200 and it seems like it is not standard on all fleets. Emirates operates a few of them and apparently with the dump capability. Don't know if that was a company specific request for the option as they operate out of Dubai where temps are very high and pressures are low in summer. On some of the runways overhere, due to obstacles in the climb out, certain types of aircraft have up to an eight ton fuel penalty if they have to depart from a particular runway and therefore these guys would always request the opposite end for departure if traffic and wx permits.
Cheers
Fart
No fuel dump valves/pumps are on the DC-9, probably not on MD-80s either. One can leave takeoff flaps and extend the gear (maybe not good in icing conditions), creating more fuel burn per minute.
Do any two-person cockpits have dump capability? I can imagine how many 'clean-up' items are on an A-300/330/340 or B-777 "engine failure" or "eng. fire" checklist. Workload could be a serious factor here, having no flight engineer. Luckily, computers have replaced people. Tell that to MD-11 pilots who have an inoperative fuel gauge (and other things), far from land.
How about the newest C-130, having no flight engineer? How about a brand-new Aircraft Commander, flying with a new copilot having about 300-400 hours total, losing an engine and monitoring fuel dumping?
Do any two-person cockpits have dump capability? I can imagine how many 'clean-up' items are on an A-300/330/340 or B-777 "engine failure" or "eng. fire" checklist. Workload could be a serious factor here, having no flight engineer. Luckily, computers have replaced people. Tell that to MD-11 pilots who have an inoperative fuel gauge (and other things), far from land.
How about the newest C-130, having no flight engineer? How about a brand-new Aircraft Commander, flying with a new copilot having about 300-400 hours total, losing an engine and monitoring fuel dumping?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: dublin
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A300B4 HAS DUMP SYSTEM.DC9/MD80 DOSE NOT,A310 DOSE NOT.AS FOR THE MD11 WASN'T THAT WHAT THOSE POOR GUYS ON SWISSAIR 111 WERE DOING WHICH DELAYED THEM AND GAVE THE FIRE THE TIME IT NEEDED TO DO THE DAMAGE,SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR THE OVERWEIGHT LANDING!
I think that the Canadian B767-300s which are now part of the Air Canada fleet either don't have the capability to dump fuel or the dumping system is disabled - not sure which. Anyone know?