United Airlines UAL28 circling over The Channel

[Otispunkmeyer]

Previous said:

Some aircraft have fuel jettison capabilities, but some not, some it's an optional extra. For how often it's needed it's not really worth the weight penalty of having it for most operators.

Aircraft have an operational life of about 30 years also, so without looking up that particular plane "these days" could mean a plane dating from the mid 80's on.

Pretty standard to lose fuel before landing, the rated landing weight will be less than max take off weight even for normal operations.

Edit, that aircraft was built in 2000.

I saw your mid 80s and then looked at UAL. That's about right! They've got some old birds in the sky and that's not just the air hostesses. The 747 we were on last still had a communal projection screen (although rear projection) and airphones in the seat backs!

[jamiebae]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Previous said:

Some aircraft have fuel jettison capabilities, but some not, some it's an optional extra. For how often it's needed it's not really worth the weight penalty of having it for most operators.

Aircraft have an operational life of about 30 years also, so without looking up that particular plane "these days" could mean a plane dating from the mid 80's on.

Pretty standard to lose fuel before landing, the rated landing weight will be less than max take off weight even for normal operations.

Edit, that aircraft was built in 2000.

I saw your mid 80s and then looked at UAL. That's about right! They've got some old birds in the sky and that's not just the air hostesses. The 747 we were on last still had a communal projection screen (although rear projection) and airphones in the seat backs!

I thought the same, some of their stuff is pretty much derelict, the last one I took still had the old livery, paint flaking off the fuselage, collapsing seat cushions and the world's tiniest seat-back screen.

[snowy]

So the plane takes off from LHR to Charles de Gaulle Airport, has to fly around for 3 hours to burn fuel, then return to LHR, call me old fashioned why not fly to Charles de Gaulle Airport, drop the passengers off, and then fix it in Paris

It couldn't have been a major issue or it would have returned ASAP

[Charlie1986]

No that was last night a BA plane flew from Heathrow had a tour around Worthing for 45 mins then returned instead of landing a CDG. The plane your thinking about was going to New York but flew around the English channel for 4 hours before landing back at Heathrow and that was an American Airlines

[croyde]

Question!

That plane that took off from New York had a bird strike and landed immediately in the Hudson river. Would it have jettisoned fuel? Over a city? considering the pilot only had seconds to react.

[Petrus1983]

croyde said:

Question!

That plane that took off from New York had a bird strike and landed immediately in the Hudson river. Would it have jettisoned fuel? Over a city? considering the pilot only had seconds to react.

It still had 2600 gallons of fuel on board when it 'landed'. Apparently none leaked into the Hudson so they must have been able to turn off the taps (there's probably a more accurate way of putting that!).

[Previous]

re Hudson landing - Max landing weight isn't so important if you're never going to use the aircraft again.

At 100 million USD for an A320 or similar (type in Hudson incident iirc), more for larger aircraft, if there's no immediate safety issues then you can see why the airline doesn't want to unnecessarily risk damage of landing overweight!

[onyx39]

Petrus1983 said:

croyde said:

Question!

That plane that took off from New York had a bird strike and landed immediately in the Hudson river. Would it have jettisoned fuel? Over a city? considering the pilot only had seconds to react.

It still had 2600 gallons of fuel on board when it 'landed'. Apparently none leaked into the Hudson so they must have been able to turn off the taps (there's probably a more accurate way of putting that!).

I seem to recall that when she "landed" there was not enough time to carry out the entire "checklist" so I am guessing turning off the taps is close to the top of list.

[24lemons]

Hooli said:

Puggit said:

MrCarPark said:

Worth another

[Otispunkmeyer]

jamiebae said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

Previous said:

Some aircraft have fuel jettison capabilities, but some not, some it's an optional extra. For how often it's needed it's not really worth the weight penalty of having it for most operators.

Aircraft have an operational life of about 30 years also, so without looking up that particular plane "these days" could mean a plane dating from the mid 80's on.

Pretty standard to lose fuel before landing, the rated landing weight will be less than max take off weight even for normal operations.

Edit, that aircraft was built in 2000.

I saw your mid 80s and then looked at UAL. That's about right! They've got some old birds in the sky and that's not just the air hostesses. The 747 we were on last still had a communal projection screen (although rear projection) and airphones in the seat backs!

I thought the same, some of their stuff is pretty much derelict, the last one I took still had the old livery, paint flaking off the fuselage, collapsing seat cushions and the world's tiniest seat-back screen.

Sounds like you got the Lux-O-Liner! Seat back TV screens indeed! There is a video on YT where some reviewer guy refers to a UAL 767 as the "Ghetto Bird".