|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 23, 2019 14:40:28 GMT -5
So, I've been reading about the 777x. What's with the folding wings? I've never heard of any used on commercial aircraft. Mostly it seems to have been for naval aircraft that need to deal with tight storage spaces. Gate/taxi constraints at airports. Current 777s can fit into Group V gates and taxiways (65 meter wingspan). In order to get more wingspan but still fit into the same gates, they will fold the wingtips. This was actually considered for the 777 way back when it was first designed, but it was not implemented then.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 23, 2019 14:44:26 GMT -5
So, I've been reading about the 777x. What's with the folding wings? I've never heard of any used on commercial aircraft. Mostly it seems to have been for naval aircraft that need to deal with tight storage spaces. Gate/taxi constraints at airports. I get that it's for the tight spaces, but why hasn't it been done before?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 23, 2019 14:47:05 GMT -5
Gate/taxi constraints at airports. I get that it's for the tight spaces, but why hasn't it been done before? Weight. Complexity. Certification. Money. All the usual reasons for not doing something.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 14, 2020 19:32:23 GMT -5
Anyone have a comment on the 777 that dumped fuel on an emergency approach to LAX. There are tons of complaints about kids in playgrounds having eye/skin irritation.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 14, 2020 19:41:27 GMT -5
Dumping fuel is quite rare, actually. Normally the procedure is to just fly in circles long enough to burn the fuel. And normally dumping is not done over populated areas. I have no idea what the reason was.
It was a plane from LA to China, which unfortunately means it probably had a lot of fuel on board.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 14, 2020 21:23:09 GMT -5
Dumping fuel is quite rare, actually. Normally the procedure is to just fly in circles long enough to burn the fuel. And normally dumping is not done over populated areas. I have no idea what the reason was. It was a plane from LA to China, which unfortunately means it probably had a lot of fuel on board. Not to mention the fact that not every airliner can do that. Neither the 757 or the 737 can dump fuel.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 14, 2020 21:23:47 GMT -5
Dumping fuel is quite rare, actually. Normally the procedure is to just fly in circles long enough to burn the fuel. And normally dumping is not done over populated areas. I have no idea what the reason was. It was a plane from LA to China, which unfortunately means it probably had a lot of fuel on board. Could it have safely landed without dumping fuel? My understanding is that it should be OK although it stresses the landing gear.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 14, 2020 21:42:39 GMT -5
Dumping fuel is quite rare, actually. Normally the procedure is to just fly in circles long enough to burn the fuel. And normally dumping is not done over populated areas. I have no idea what the reason was. It was a plane from LA to China, which unfortunately means it probably had a lot of fuel on board. Could it have safely landed without dumping fuel? My understanding is that it should be OK although it stresses the landing gear. I'm not sure. Besides requiring a lot of inspections and possibly repairs if landing overweight, the heavier an airplane is, the more runway it needs to land. They may have needed to lose weight in order to keep from overrunning the runway. Clearly something unusual happened, though. Simply losing one engine would not normally require an emergency, overweight landing. Of course you wouldn't continue on to China, but normally it wouldn't prevent a more typical fuel dumping scenario (climb to above 10,000 feet and dump fuel over unpopulated areas).
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 14, 2020 21:58:59 GMT -5
Could it have safely landed without dumping fuel? My understanding is that it should be OK although it stresses the landing gear. I'm not sure. Besides requiring a lot of inspections and possibly repairs if landing overweight, the heavier an airplane is, the more runway it needs to land. They may have needed to lose weight in order to keep from overrunning the runway. Clearly something unusual happened, though. Simply losing one engine would not normally require an emergency, overweight landing. Of course you wouldn't continue on to China, but normally it wouldn't prevent a more typical fuel dumping scenario (climb to above 10,000 feet and dump fuel over unpopulated areas). All I know is that the parents are pissed that this plane dropped fuel on their kids at a relatively low altitude. It looks like they changed course over San Fernando Valley. However, this is Los Angeles County and there's basically no lightly populated areas outside of state and national parks. But you're saying the more typical scenario is to climb to dump fuel rather than dump the fuel on the final approach at low altitude? I mean - there was this kid who captured video on a camera phone. Definitely not 10,000 feet.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 14, 2020 22:15:06 GMT -5
However, this is Los Angeles County and there's basically no lightly populated areas outside of state and national parks. LAX is right next to the ocean. The higher up they dump the fuel, the more it breaks up into an atomized mist rather than falling as drops. It's much less of a problem that way.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 14, 2020 22:25:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure. Besides requiring a lot of inspections and possibly repairs if landing overweight, the heavier an airplane is, the more runway it needs to land. They may have needed to lose weight in order to keep from overrunning the runway. Clearly something unusual happened, though. Simply losing one engine would not normally require an emergency, overweight landing. Of course you wouldn't continue on to China, but normally it wouldn't prevent a more typical fuel dumping scenario (climb to above 10,000 feet and dump fuel over unpopulated areas). All I know is that the parents are pissed that this plane dropped fuel on their kids at a relatively low altitude. It looks like they changed course over San Fernando Valley. However, this is Los Angeles County and there's basically no lightly populated areas outside of state and national parks. But you're saying the more typical scenario is to climb to dump fuel rather than dump the fuel on the final approach at low altitude? I mean - there was this kid who captured video on a camera phone. Definitely not 10,000 feet. Which airline was this?
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Jan 14, 2020 22:39:29 GMT -5
All I know is that the parents are pissed that this plane dropped fuel on their kids at a relatively low altitude. It looks like they changed course over San Fernando Valley. However, this is Los Angeles County and there's basically no lightly populated areas outside of state and national parks. But you're saying the more typical scenario is to climb to dump fuel rather than dump the fuel on the final approach at low altitude? I mean - there was this kid who captured video on a camera phone. Definitely not 10,000 feet. Which airline was this? Delta.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 14, 2020 23:48:13 GMT -5
I am hearing now that the FAA is investigating. I am trying to understand what sort of emergency situation that would force the plane to dump fuel at low attitude. Could there be something wrong with the landing gear such that the pilots have not choice but to dump fuel? But even so, that would not explain why it has to dump it at this low altitude. Could be combined with something wrong with the engines or the fuel system? Still does not answer the low altitude fuel dumping. Otherwise, if nothing is wrong with the landing gear, yes, landing overweight will stressed the landing gear (meaning it will have to be fixed or replaced entirely-expensive for the airlines, yes, but in an emergency, repair cost is way down the list of priority), although it should still be able to support the plane structurally (i.e. it won't just collapse...or would it?).
|
|
|
Airplanes
Jan 15, 2020 1:11:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by XAsstCoach on Jan 15, 2020 1:11:44 GMT -5
Wifey was reading the story to me on the drive to work. Said under certain cases of emergency declared can the airline dump the fuel at lower altitudes. So, yeah, be interested to see what kind of emergency it was.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jan 15, 2020 1:12:48 GMT -5
However, this is Los Angeles County and there's basically no lightly populated areas outside of state and national parks. LAX is right next to the ocean. The higher up they dump the fuel, the more it breaks up into an atomized mist rather than falling as drops. It's much less of a problem that way. I checked FlightAware and the typical profile of this flight is to break slightly into the Pacific Ocean and then hang a sharp right and fly over California. This one broke right again over San Fernando Valley and headed back for LAX.
|
|